Net neutrality at the crossroads

[Commentary] Few issues in recent years have generated as much passion—and confusion—as the debate over net neutrality for broadband transmissions. To be sure, the idea of "neutrality" exudes positive vibrations in many contexts. To combat arbitrary power, governments, for example, must apply neutral principles in drafting legislation and in resolving judicial disputes. The harder question is whether private parties, who don't exercise state power, should be subject to similar neutrality constraints. The presumptive answer is no. The basic idea of private property is bottomed on the view that any owner has the right to exclude everyone else in the world, which in turn gives him the right to selectively admit whomever he pleases on terms to their mutual likely. The existence of multiple owners with different agendas spurs innovation and creativity, so long as the neutral state backs the owners right to exclude and to enforce, both ways, the contracts with the owner's contracting partners. All in all, the presumption against state interference holds up. The explosive growth in broadband in the absence of net neutrality has continued to confound the doomsayers. But the old maxim, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, surely applies with special force to an FCC whose toolkit is filled with expensive, blunt, and broken instruments.