The FCC has recently proposed a new set of of Internet rules effectively codifying Net Neutrality. Interestingly, the GOP and their Fox minions are diametrically opposed. The clear implication is that the GOP is confessing that they are not on the sides of freedom and open markets as claimed, but rather are cozily in the pocket of existing industry titans.

Net Neutrality is essentially the principle that the Internet should be open to all traffic. Bits are bits as far as the underlying network is concerned. Specifically, it means that ISPs cannot show preference for one type of traffic over another, or forbid any content types or applications on their networks. Net Neutrality is pretty much universally favored by tech enthusiasts and just about every company that does business over the Internet. The ones who are opposed are the ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, and Time Warner.

The ISPs have launched a hard lobbying effort and folks like John McCain are falling right in line. McCain recently introduced the ironically named Internet Freedom Act of 2009. The bill would prevent the FCC from imposing rules that would guarantee that the Internet was open and available to all and allow the ISPs to control the content to which you have access. Glenn Beck has gone so far as to call Net Neutrality a Marxist plan, although the analogy frankly escapes me.

So is Net Neutrality really a good thing? Well, let’s look at other industries to see. Back in the early days of telephony, some telephone companies refused to allow calls to be made to certain areas or numbers because it wasn’t profitable enough for them to do so. The government stepped in and said enough of that. If you are a telephone company then you will allow your customers to call anywhere and everyone. In essence they created Net Neutrality rules for the telephone network. Calls are calls. Does anyone think in retrospect that was a bad idea?

Would it make sense for roads to provide “Ford only” express lanes? How about if UPS cut a deal with Buy.com to deliver all their packages first and shelve any Amazon.com packages for two days? These are the sorts of situations we could find ourselves in if we allow the ISPs to control content on the Internet.

What can we look forward to in a non-Net Neutral world? Let me pick on my own ISP for an example. Time Warner has a virtual monopoly in my area for broadband service. They also sell TV service and VoIP phone service. Without Net Neutrality, TWC could opt to slow down services like Hulu.com to make streaming TV unwatchable, forcing you to subscribe to their digital TV service. They could even go so far as to prevent connecting to Vonage, Skype, or MagicJack servers, thereby forcing you to their VoIP service. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent this.

ISPs have also gone so far as to begin to indicate that if they are not allowed to use “traffic shaping” strategies to control their content that they will be forced to implement metered billing. As we’ve discussed before on this forum, metered billing is just another way to boost the profitability of their non-ISP businesses. Many other countries support high(er) speed unlimited ISP offerings for a fraction of what those services cost in the US.

Allowing ISPs to control content is not necessary to support the ISP business model. It is not good for American business or innovation. It is not good for consumers. It is certainly not consistent with free markets and freedom from tyranny. It is only good for lining the pockets of big ISPs with powerful lobbies. Which rather tells you where the GOP’s bread is buttered, doesn’t it?