Does the Internet make people stupid? This column has been on the optimistic side: Surely humans can still find a way to focus on and understand complex topics. But that faith is being sorely tested by the abysmal Washington debate over "net neutrality."
Monday is the deadline for public comments on proposed Internet regulations to the Federal Communications Commission. More than one million comments have been posted, mostly sent by "clicktivists" and drafted by special-interest groups in Washington. As a sign of the confusion over the topic, many commenters say they want more Internet competition but then demand regulation that would stifle competition.
Everyone favors an open Internet where no one needs permission to start a website or launch an app, and all content is distributed without censorship. But lobbying groups with Orwellian names like Free Press and Public Knowledge want to turn the Internet into a regulated utility, with bureaucrats setting prices and terms under rules written for railroads in the 19th century and the telephone monopoly in the 1930s.
The number of FCC comments soared after comedian John Oliver did a segment on his HBO show, "Last Week Tonight," in June. He acknowledged that "net neutrality" is a complex topic—"The only two words that promise more boredom in the English language are 'Featuring Sting '"—but called on his audience to demand some kind of action by the FCC.
Enlarge Image


Getty Images




"Good evening, monsters," he said. "For once in your life, we need you to channel that anger, that badly spelled bile that you normally reserve for unforgivable attacks on actresses you seem to think have put on weight, or politicians that you disagree with, or photos of your ex-girlfriend getting on with her life. . . . Focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls, turn on caps lock, and fly, my pretties! Fly! Fly!" The rush of comments, many aimed at cable and telecom broadband providers, crashed the FCC website.
There were serious comments too. One of them ran 159 pages and was written by Berin Szoka, president of the market-oriented think tank TechFreedom, and Geoffrey Manne of the International Center for Law and Economics. But recognizing that a "radical fringe has hijacked the conversation in an attempt to undo two decades of bipartisan consensus against heavy-handed government control of the Internet," Mr. Szoka decided to match the tactics of the more organized advocacy groups.
Earlier this month, TechFreedom launched a website, www.DontBreakThe.Net, which boiled down its highly technical submission for easy consumption, with an online petition. "Cat videos aren't megawatts," the site proclaims, "and the net's not a series of tubes, so don't treat it as a utility." It recounts the bipartisan insistence on an unregulated Internet during the Clinton administration, when then-FCC Chairman Bill Kennard, a Democrat, called utility regulations a "morass" that would slow investment in broadband. The site explains how heavy regulations harm startups and favor established companies that employ legions of lawyers and lobbyists.
Yet one wonders if even the lobbyists have actually read the FCC's extraordinarily broad regulation that would apply to the Internet:
"Whenever . . . the Commission shall be of opinion that any charge, classification, regulation, or practice of any carrier or carriers is or will be in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, the Commission is authorized and empowered to determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable charge or the maximum or minimum, or maximum and minimum, charge or charges to be thereafter observed, and what classification, regulation, or practice is or will be just, fair, and reasonable, to be thereafter followed, and to make an order that the carrier or carriers shall cease and desist from such violation to the extent that the Commission finds that the same does or will exist, and shall not thereafter publish, demand, or collect any charge other than the charge so prescribed, or in excess of the maximum or less than the minimum so prescribed, as the case may be, and shall adopt the classification and shall conform to and observe the regulation or practice so prescribed."
Translation: Bureaucrats, not markets, would decide "just and reasonable" prices and terms for Internet access, as they did for railroads and Ma Bell. Today's permissionless Internet would come to an end, and business and technology innovations would require prior approval from regulators.
Converting the Internet into a utility would mean years of litigation and regulatory uncertainty, reducing investment in broadband. New entrants such as GoogleGOOGL -1.19% Fiber would lose the incentive to challenge the cable-and-telephone duopoly. Mr. Oliver's viewers won't be laughing anymore.