I wish this debate had more commentators with the temperament of Mr. Navarrow Wright. The attacks entertained by Mr. James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change.org on the motives and integrity of certain civil rights groups has been disturbing and partially responsible for the blow back that Mr. Rucker has been receiving. Instead, the focus should have been on the feasibility and effectiveness of net neutrality as policy.

Hopefully we can still salvage a little civility. The continued needs of the minority community on the issue of the digital divide will require that we all work together in the very near future.

I like Mr. Wright’s emphasis on the promotion of digital entrepreneurship. As an arm of the government, the Federal Communications Commission should be at the front line in what I believe is the government’s duty to promote commerce.

It’s one thing to encourage broadband adoption so that more people can get online and consume digitally provided information. It’s quite another to promote the use of cyberspace as a factory for building and distributing online services.

The FCC would bring a lot more relevancy to broadband deployment initiatives if it would focus on the creative and distributional aspects as opposed to persuading citizens and Congress that there should be more regulation. That approach does not generate opportunities for investment nor encourage entrepreneurial pursuits.

In an eloquent piece written in The Huffington Post, Mr. Wright has thoroughly described the static view, held by the FCC and other net neutrality proponents, and the dynamic view, held by the National Urban League, the NAACP, and other groups and citizens opposed to net neutrality.

Free Press and Color of Change’s views are static because they are only concerned with protecting the traffic they are getting from their 2.6 million online viewers. This is why they focus on a conservative consumer protection argument. Consumer protection, in its traditional form, automatically degenerates to more regulatory rules, which is where the FCC comes in.

Free Press and Color of Change never talk about expanding broadband adoption, which is a more progressive and dynamic approach that is best served by allowing broadband providers to develop service plans and packages that can incentivize the additional consumer demand needed from the more skeptical members of the minority community.

Regulation based on a set of patronizing consumer protection rules will not close the digital divide.

Commentator Navarrow Wright’s recent column in The Huffington Post on net neutrality illuminates a value that net neutrality proponents purposefully overlook: net neutrality takes away choice. Taking away choice is un-American, anti-democratic, and uneconomic.

Broadband providers should be able to choose whether to expand or scale up the capacity to move video, text, and voice. If a content provider believes that, given the volume, bandwidth, and quality needs of its traffic, it should have the option of paying to avoid congestion, then allow that content provider that choice.

Why ride with the rest of the herd when I, as a content provider, can choose to buy my own HOV lane? Why should I delay launching my website when I can partner with an Internet access provider to have my traffic move to the head of the line? An economic non-discrimination policy takes away choice.

Commentator Navarrow Wright left very enlightening remarks in a piece written for the Huffington Post on Monday.  Too bad certain proponents of net neutrality continue to miss Mr. Wright’s point.

Proponents have turned the issue of market differentiation into discrimination against minorities. The Internet is like an airway or highway. The pathways that Internet access providers construct for the movement of traffic over their networks is finite.

To expand or scale up the capacity to move video, text, and voice, an Internet access provider should be allowed to make the economic decision of offering this choice to content providers: if you believe that, given the volume, bandwidth needs, and quality needs of your traffic that you should be moved to the head of the line, then you have the option of paying to avoid congestion.

Lord knows I made this choice many a morning driving along the Dulles Tollway to save ten minutes going to work. Content providers should also be allowed to make this choice when wanting to get high-quality video to their consumers.

Why ride with the rest of the herd when I, as a minority content provider, can choose to buy my own HOV lane? Why should I delay launching my website when I can partner with an Internet access provider to have my traffic move to the head of the line?

Mr. Wright’s position illuminates a value that net neutrality proponents purposefully overlook: net neutrality takes away choice. Taking away choice is un-American, anti-democratic, and uneconomic.