Currently we need the internet to be a widely available, uncensored, and responsive utility.

Like we need broadcast airwaves to be uncensored? The problem with net neutrality is that you set up a federal commission to oversee the internet, like the FCC does with airwaves. This paves the way for government regulation of content. If the democrats appoint officials to the FCC you may see regulation of political speech during elections, or if Republicans appoint them, you may see regulation of obscenity.

If there were a constitutional amendment prohibiting any censorship of content, then I would support it. Plus you have to compensate the people who laid the pipe (I’m not referring to internet porn here).

And Mr. Glass, yes you’re technically correct that the Internet was not designed originally to be a utility. But you know what? It also wasn’t designed to stream video, or to download large files, or for websites that pull from multiple sources and feed back to the server like the one you’re on now. It was meant to share lab reports basically, that’s it. To quote Vint Cerf – you know, the father of the internet guy – it was “an experiment that sort-of never ended”.

But really what it was meant for is beside the point entirely. Its more about what we need. Currently we need the internet to be a widely available, uncensored, and responsive utility. It’s the world’s largest repository of knowledge, its all but impossible to stay relevant in this world without access to it. So yeah, it has quickly become a right.

But Crawford isn’t a technologist; she’s a lawyer. And lawyers are ensured of full employment by regulation, because they can make millions representing clients before regulatory bodies, interpreting regulations, filing lawsuits based on regulation, etc. — and so, naturally enough, they are biased toward it.

The regulation that Crawford favors (and she has argued for it by making false statements to Congress) would be horrible for the Internet. It would ensure that no independent ISP could survive; everyone would HAVE to get Internet from a telephone company or a cable company. You couldn’t pay more for more bandwidth if you needed it (even though it’s natural, because more bandwidth costs the provider more money)… somehow, that’s not egalitarian enough. Crawford isn’t a realist; she’s a lobbyist. And woe betide us if we give lobbyists control of our country….

It’s a huge and irresistable target. The internet must be equal for everyone. Broadband is a basic human right! Just wait ’til all the special interest competitors of various types get their hands on this stuff. Soon your bill will be x dollars per month plus an $8 cut for uncle sam, and the quick gumming up of all sorts of free downloading and file sharing.

But remember, if we don’t make the internet a regulated utility, we’re “screwed.” This must be one of those special moments where, just for a second, progressives pretend to care about markets and competition. As a matter of convenience. No worries, amnesia always ensues.

Anyone else out there wonder why the measure called “penetration” is the one Crawford is using? How much you wanna bet that penetration is a function of population density, and that global leaders in this measure are the densely populated regions of Europe? I’d be in for $20, but then I’d be one of those awful folks killing hope with mere facts.