Ced Kurtz ("TechMan: Despite Ads, Government Doesn't Want To Control Net," May 23) accuses me of "paranoid nonsense" for arguing that pervasive economic regulation of the Internet will risk content regulation. But in a world of Internet-as-regulated-public-utility, competition will quickly give way to regulation as a model of control, and regulators are subject to political pressure.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps recently suggested precisely the type of control we're likely to see -- steering traffic in the name of diversity or other politically desirable objectives.

Moreover, while Mr. Kurtz is correct that the Internet is a global network, domestic regulation would disrupt diplomatic efforts to prevent foreign governments from cracking down on online speech. Philip Verveer, assistant secretary of state and U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy, said the FCC's proposed approach "could be employed by regimes that don't agree with our perspectives about essentially avoiding regulation of the Internet ... as a pretext or as an excuse for undertaking public policy activities that we would disagree with pretty profoundly."

Finally, the FCC's proposal is a disaster even if you discount the possibility of content regulation. It will undermine investment, innovation, and the competition from which consumers have benefited over the past 12 years.

PHIL KERPEN

Vice President, Policy

Americans for Prosperity

Arlington, Va.

"Money Q&A" and "Company Town" are featured exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.