So he’s not making the same boring old argument about Telcos stealing the Internet and wrecking democracy, he’s saying that Fox News and CBS are stealing the Internet to sink YouTube and the Daily Kos.

The Moyers program is an ad for all of Robert McChesney’s obsessions rolled into one gigantic burrito of panic. It’s epic, and insufficiently appreciated.

The collapse of Amaranth Advisors, for example may result in a stupid regulatory over reaction. It doesn’t appear that Amaranth actually did anything ethically wrong. However, in the stock option scandal, the unethical behavior of some corporate executives demonstrates a need for regulation.

The removal regulations under the mantra of promoting competition can also have unforeseen consequence. For example the deregulation of the power industry was interpreted by Enron as a license to steal.

If the content corporations can act ethically towards their customers, then I would agree that regulation would be stupid. However, if they initiate unethical behavior, then regulate away

Fortunately, we know the answer. Net neutrality, according to PBS, existed until 2005. That tells us that this week “net neutrality” means “unbundling”, as that was the only network regulation that went away in 2005, and it was only a DSL regulation. Cable Internet was never regulated by the rules that were rescinded for DSL.

So we can answer the question by comparing the non-net-neutrality-regulated cable vs. the heavily regulated DSL. Sumbitch, cable is better, faster, and cheaper.

So that’s what happens if you free the infrastructure of stupid regulations. Now which one do you want?

I will also agree that regulations should be kept to a minimum. But this leaves me with the concern that the argument against implementing regulations to guarantee net neutrality is not correctly framed. Similar the one-sided PBS debate, the argument against regulations to guarantee net neutrality have apparently not yet considered the alternative outcome. To restate, what happens if we don’t have net neutrality?

Corporations are not altruistic; they exist to make a profit, which means that they will do whatever they can to maximize that profit. Even if it means implementing bad (unethical) business practices. CNET for example reported on July 7, 2006 that “A class action lawsuit charges that Cingular Wireless, the nation’s largest carrier, deceived AT&T Wireless subscribers into paying extra fees and degraded their service after acquiring that company in 2004.” Additionally, Ed Foster writes (10/17/2006), regarding Verizon, that It’s a time-honored marketing tradition in the Internet access business to promise the customer anything, and then renege on any promises that turn out to be inconvenient by changing the service’s terms and conditions.” In this case it appears that Verizon offered unlimited internet usage and then apparently reneged. I would like to here how the user will fare under a no-network neutrality scenario.