• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, March 10, 2011

Lawmakers who want to see neutrality rules overturned might be able to muster enough votes to do so in the House, but it's unlikely that they will prevail in the Senate. Nonetheless, that's not stopping certain members of the GOP from continuing to rail against open Internet rules -- and to make some extremely questionable arguments in the process.

Consider some questions posed this week to Zipcar co-founder Robin Chase, who testified at a panel hearing that one reason why she favored open Internet regulations is that they enabled her to start her business back in 2000.

"On the Internet, our ... packets were treated like anyone else's and we did not need to gain approval from our provider or anyone in order to do this," she said in her written remarks. "I can only imagine the possible bureaucratic delays or rejection we might have encountered without the Internet."

Other entrepreneurs have long made similar points. Nonetheless, the testimony prompted some odd questions by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore), chairman of the House subcommittee on communications and technology. "Despite the fact that these rules have never existed previously, and that companies you've been involved with and thousands of others have thrived, do I understand correctly that you support these rules because you believe they are needed to ensure that small companies can compete on the Internet?" he asked.

Of course -- despite the assertions contained in Walden's question -- neutrality rules long existed online, albeit under a different name. As Rep. Mike Doyle Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) pointed out at the hearing, all Internet service providers were required to follow non-discrimination rules until broadband service was deregulated in 2005.

Walden continued with a different, though equally bizarre line of questioning, asking her if she would be "wary" of Web sites like Google charging for prioritized placement online. She answered quite reasonably that the FCC order doesn't deal with Google, but with the providers who control access to the Web.

Walden continued by telling Chase that when he prepared for the hearing, he conducted a Google search for "car placement" and saw that Zipcar had the top paid placement. "Isn't that exactly the kind of issue you're concerned about, in terms of a market leader paying a giant for better access to consumers?"

No, she responded, Google made it possible for small businesses to arrange for the equivalent of a full-page newspaper ad.

Even more fundamentally, despite attempts by neutrality opponents to equate search engines with broadband providers, paying for the top spot in the search ads is nothing at all like net neutrality. Even assuming that the top spot in Google really is "better access," Google is a publisher and, like any other publisher, can pick and choose what content to offer users. As it happens, it's in Google's interest to make its results as useful to consumers as possible -- which is why search neutrality is something of an absurdity anyway. As New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann writes, "Search engines compete to give users relevant results; they exist at all only because they do. Telling a search engine to be more relevant is like telling a boxer to punch harder."

Should Google decide to stop focusing on relevance and instead start selling placement without regard to content, people could find the information some other way - from other search engines and, for that matter, other online research tools.

But broadband users can't do very much about their providers. Some only have one option; many others just have two. Even when two providers are available, it's not as if consumers can toggle back and forth between them the way they can, say, between Google and Bing. Which is why consumer advocates, to say nothing of the many businesses that rely on the Web, say that neutrality rules are necessary.