An editorial in the Washington Post by David Farber and Michael Katz questions congressional initiatives aimed at addressing the issue of "network neutrality." They point out that, while such efforts are intended to promote continuing Internet innovation by "restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender's willingness to pay," that there could be unintended consequences that would have exactly the opposite effect.

Traffic management is a prime example. When traffic surges beyond the ability of the network to carry it, something is going to be delayed. When choosing what gets delayed, it makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from, say, a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms and spam.

In addition, they suggest that appropriate pricing and service models for new premium high-speed data services will probably evolve over time. Blocking such premium pricing in the name of neutrality might also block such services which might be beneficial to consumers.

Public policy should intervene where anti-competitive actions can be identified and the cure will not be worse than the disease. Policymakers must tread carefully, however, because it can be difficult, if not impossible, to determine in advance whether a particular practice promotes or harms competition...

Does this mean we believe that we should place all our trust in the market and the current providers? No. But it does mean we should wait until there is a problem before rushing to enact solutions.

Hold Off On Net Neutrality; Page A19