Six definitions that are preventing consensus on net neutrality

[Commentary] Here are the core six terms with double meanings that torment net neutrality consensus: Internet, net neutrality, free, open, competition, and economics.

Internet: Internet service providers see themselves as an integral part of the Internet...[h]owever, proponents of net neutrality...want to define ISPs as Title II telephone utilities, and the physical hardware part of the Internet as the public switched telephone network, to effectively redefine the Internet on their terms as “the edge” made up of only “edge,” software or virtual providers.
Net Neutrality: The snowballing definition now has many net neutrality proponents seeing net neutrality as the same as 1934 monopoly telephone utility law which regulated telecommunications as a common carrier.
Free: Increasingly proponents of Title II net neutrality define “free” as no-cost or a price of zero. However, opponents define “free” as shorthand for individual freedom, since most people pay for Internet access most of the time.
Open: Proponents define open as the strongest possible utility regulation, and non-proprietary, like open-source software that confers no property rights. Opponents see an open market as a deregulated market.
Competition: Proponents and the previous Federal Communications Commission, defined broadband competition as government-managed competition where the government determines some prices, terms and conditions of ISPs to advantage edge providers. In contrast, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai defines broadband competition as market-driven competition between facilities-based providers of broadband Internet access, and where consumers pick winners and losers.
Economics: Many of the most ardent net neutrality supporters consider the Internet like a public common, ie online resources that do not require payment of permission to use. In contrast to most other people, including Chairman Pai and Commissioner Mike O’Rielly, believe in the market organizing principle of the economics of scarcity, where pricing must ultimately reflect total costs, not cherry-picked marginal costs, and supply and demand.

[Scott Cleland is president of Precursor LLC and the chairman of NetCompetition]