At BIGGOVERNMENT.com, Seton Motley takes the effort to regulate Internet service provision in the name of neutrality and stomps on it with both feet.

If this were high school (and politics really sort of is), Net Neutrality would be sitting alone at lunch — shunned even by the members of the marching band and the audio-visual club. Having had its lunch money taken, it would have only enough for milk (and would sadly be unable to open the container). It would be planning to take its aunt to prom.

His brief, unkind history takes the push for Internet regulation from its bright beginnings in 2006 through a four-year-long fade. It ends with the PR catastrophe the Progressive Change Campaign Committee produced when it signed 95 Democratic candidates onto a “Network Neutrality Pledge” and they all lost.

That fiasco doesn’t reveal anything about the merits of the proposal to turn Internet service providers into federally regulated public utilities. But it is emblematic of the immaturity and amateurishness of the push for net neutrality regulation. The effort never fixed on an actual, defined problem. Instead it rotated through corporate missteps with text message services, with web sites, and sometimes with actual Internet service. The movement was long on slogans and short on concrete proposals.

Proponents of net neutrality regulation never answered the conundrum posed by “regulatory capture”—that the FCC they wanted to “control” ISPs might end up controlled by them. They never countered the point that technologists and marketplace actors would husband the behavior of ISPs, a point made ably by Tim Lee in his paper, The Durable Internet.

Motley caps off his cyberbullying of the Internet regulation effort with an Examiner piece today noting that the Progressive Change Campaign Committee raised a pitiful $300 for its efforts.

If the push for net neutrality regulation survives, it will have to regroup/grow up, identify a concrete problem and a defensible solution, and then carry that credible message beyond its own echo chamber. All in all, the movement to regulate net neutrality seems to have been “playing at” advocacy rather than seriously advocating.

In the wake of yesterday’s ruling in the D.C. Circuit that the FCC had exceeded its authority in attempting to regulate access to the Internet, I did a number of radio interviews and a radio debate with Derek Turner of Free Press, a leading advocate of Internet regulation.

The debate was a brief, fair exchange of views. I was struck, though, to hear Turner refer to the situation as a “crisis.” Sure enough, in a Free Press release, Turner says three times that the ruling creates a “crisis.”

Recall that in 2007 Comcast degraded the service it provided to a tiny group of customers using a bandwidth-hogging protocol called BitTorrent. Recall also that before the FCC acted, Comcast had stopped doing this, relenting to customer complaints, negative attention in news stories, and such.

In the wake of the D.C. Circuit ruling and the crisis it has created, Internet users can expect the following changes to their Internet service:
None.

Wow. With crises like these, who needs tranquility?

“As a result of this decision, the FCC has virtually no power to stop Comcast from blocking Web sites,” the release intones.

That would be worrisome, though still not much of a crisis—except that Comcast would be undercutting its own business by doing that. Did you know also that no federal regulation bars people from burning their furniture in the backyard? That’s the same kind of problem.

As Tim Lee points out in his paper, “The Durable Internet,” consumer pressures are likely in almost all cases to rein in undesirable ISP practices. Computer scientist Lee presents examples of how ownership of communications platforms does not imply control. If an ISP persists in maintaining a harmful practice contrary to consumer demand—and consumers can’t express their desires by switching to another service—we can talk then.

In the meantime, this “crisis” has me slightly drowsy and eager to go outside and enjoy the spring weather.

Some people have labored under the impression that “net neutrality” regulation was about the government stepping in to ensure that large corporations would not control the Internet. Now that the issue is truly joined, it is clear (as exhibited in this Wall Street Journal story) that the debate is about one set of corporate interests battling another set of corporate interests about the Internet, each seeking to protect or strengthen its business model. The FCC is surfing the debate pursuing a greater role for itself, meaning more budget and power.

Tim Lee’s paper, The Durable Internet, dispells the idea that owners of Internet infrastructure can actually control the Internet. The better approach to “net neutrality” is to let Internet users decide what they want from their ISPs and to let ISPs and content companies do unmediated battle with one another to create and capture the greatest value from the Internet ecosystem. If the FCC were to reduce its power by freeing up more wireless spectrum—either selling it as property or dedicating it to commons treatment—competition to provide Internet service would strengthen consumers’ hands.

These are notions I have tried to get across in some recent television interviews, which you’ll find after the jump.

In this first one, I say, “This is governmental tinkering with a marketplace that is working really well and growing,” which comes off as slightly glib. TV talk is extemporaneous, of course. I tend to lean Julian Sanchez’ way, believing that competition is insufficient in many respects. This is a product of FCC policy as much as anything, of course, and even the situation we’ve got is better than throwing up our hands and giving the FCC regulatory authority over network management forevermore.