Wall Street Journal Covers Net Neutrality, Misses Point

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120795829804109371.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

One shouldn't be surprised, but this is how WSJ opined concerning the recent Comcast/BitTorrent kurfuffle:

The good news is that while politicians and MoveOn were busy exploiting the episode to push a pro-regulatory agenda, Comcast and BitTorrent were fleshing out a new network
management plan. It will allow file-sharers to use Comcast's network without slowing service for everyone else. And it shows that the private sector is perfectly capable of handling these issues on its own... Maybe someone should tell the FCC's Mr. Martin that markets work. (emphasis mine).

This should be so obvious so as not to require wasted pixels, but briefly:

1) An agreement between 2 companies does not a neutral Internet make. If anything it demonstrates the need for a universal policy of Internet freedom. Can you imagine the aggregate legal costs if every new Internet service, business or nonprofit, had to meet with Comcasts (and AT&T's and Verizon's) legal teams?

2) This agreement was only reached because this case was politicized and used as a point of popular mobilization by Network Neutrality advocates and organizers.

3) Ergo, this is not a case of the magic of markets at work, but of corporations tweaking behaviors that sacrifice a public good (a free and open Internet) only under the scrutiny of the government and the people and in an attempt to slow down the trend towards a national policy of Internet freedom.

The FCC is holding a hearing on "Network Management Practices" (i.e. Net Neutrality) this week in Palo Alto, where they will hear again from a public that rightfully distrusts the small group of companies that control their access to the Internet.

Thanks to BW for point out the WSJ's op-ed.