We have heard Free Press and Google argue repeatedly that broadband access providers should not be allowed to practice economic discrimination by applying network management protocol for determining how much traffic goes across their networks. Free Press consistently argues that such actions are anti-consumer and would stifle a content provider’s ability to express its message.

Based on what I just read in The New York Times maybe Free Press should be telling that to Google. It appears that Google is catching its share of criticism for brazenly favoring its content over those of other content providers. According to the Times, examples of favoritism include Google Maps, YouTube videos, and local business directories.

Personally, I have no problem with Google flexing its market muscle. With 64% of the online search business in its grasp, seeing anything and everything Google when I do a search is not surprising. Google is number one until someone comes along and does better.

What I don’t get is how Free Press and other open network proponents can ally themselves with a content provider for which open network and competition is anathema.

Come on Free Press. If you have Google waving the flag for you, shouldn’t Google practice what you preach?

Anthony Downs in his classic treatment of American government, An Economic Theory of Democracy, wrote that:

“However, every government decision concerns a few men directly and immediately. These men are often well-informed about it and have definite ideas about what government should do. In order to get the government to adopt their views, they claim these views represent what the people want.”

Downs also points out that unlike lobbyists, the citizenry does not communicate directly with policymakers about what they would like to see from their government. This gives lobbyists an additional advantage. Downs writes further:

“For this reason, self-styled representatives try to persuade the government that not only are their proposals beneficial to the electorate-in which case the electorate will appreciate them post facto-but also that the electorate already desires them.”

I think that Downs’ treatment of the imbalance of influence on policymakers is highly applicable to the imbalance of influence the Obama administration has allowed itself to be subjected to on the issue of net neutrality. Consumers of broadband, and in particular minority consumers who are either unserved or underserved, are not able to communicate at the level of directness that Google has exhibited in its communications with the White House.

The irony here is that the proponents of “open, transparent, robust network management” are the same individuals and groups that are sipping from Google’s punchbowl. I am not naïve about how Washington works but I cannot view the Obama administration and the Federal Communications Commission’s agenda in any other way but severely tainted.

If the Obama administration and the FCC want to ensure that they are making equitable decisions about the impact net neutrality will have on unserved and underserved consumers, then it will have to seriously reduce the world’s largest Internet services provider’s access and influence down to the level of the unserved and underserved.

It’s time for the Obama administration to be truly neutral on net neutrality.

Net neutrality advocates are trying to woo the Congressional Black Caucus.  ColorofChange.org’s James Rucker’s argument that opponents of net neutrality are basing their arguments on fear and misinformation are unfounded. On the contrary, the arguments against net neutrality are based on the current law of the land. The court’s holding in Comcast v. FCC makes clear that the FCC cannot implement net neutrality rules with the expressed consent of Congress. That is not fear or misinformation. That is simply the law.

Some net neutrality proponents are saying that last Tuesday’s primaries were a plus for net neutrality given the support the Democratic candidates have for a so-called open network. 

When it comes to the impact net neutrality may have on the economy, I would rather defer to the politicians who keep their ears and noses on the ground in their home states versus those hoping to breathe more rarified air in Washington.

For example, the Michigan House of Representatives recently passed a bipartisan resolution, HR 285, urging the Obama administration to not impose regulations on broadband services. Why? Because, according to the resolution, Michigan cannot afford the loss of jobs and infrastructure deployment that burdensome regulations will result in.

Who would you rather listen to?

Last week, the Michigan House of Representatives passed a resolution asking President Obama, Congress, and the Federal Communications Commission to refrain from applying burdensome regulatory requirements under Title II of the Communications Act to Internet broadband services.

I hope that President Obama, Chairman Genachowski, and the Congress are listening.

The arguments that Democrats and Republicans are making in this resolution are pretty straightforward. Regulating broadband would have a severe negative impact on Michigan’s economic growth. The Internet has flourished under light touch regulation. Why buck precedent now by putting the brakes on growth by applying common carrier rules that even the FCC and Congress have said in the past are not necessary in a competitive environment.

Implementing net neutrality at a time when we are finally seeing the long awaited green sprouts of economic growth would be very bad policy, Mr. President. It’s spring time in America. Let’s enjoy the blossom.