Net Neutrality
I think I’ve worn out my welcome at Scholars & Rogues with my responses to their posts on net neutrality. I commented on the posts titled “The Net Neutrality Fight, One Year Later” and “The Battle For Better Broadband.”
Overall, I’m happy with the dicussion because it gave me a chance to state my views on the issue with someone who is involved with the “Save the Internet” group. However, I’m disappointed with the fact that the discussion was pretty one-sided. Once I tried to move the discussion away from talk about evil corporations and the benefits of a “neutral” internet and into a debate about individual rights and the proper role of government, I found myself alone (Just like the internet radio discussion I had on the same site.). It’s frustrating because that’s what the issue is about. Why should the government take over the someone’s personal property for the supposed benefit of another? It’s a question that net neutrality advocates will not answer.
I’m reposting my comments on their site below. Even though my comments were made in response to their posts, they still explain my position on my net neutrality. If you want to read them in full context, you can read them here and here.
2. Darren - April 27, 2007
If we were to keep the internet as it is, wouldn’t we keep the government out of it?
5. Darren - April 27, 2007
I am not sure what you mean when you say that net neutrality will not be used to “actively” regulate the internet. Yes, these laws won’t be used to watch and control what people do on the internet, but the laws will add rules regarding the way internet providers will be allowed to use their networks. In other words, these laws add *government regulation* to the internet. Proponents of net neutrality like to avoid those two words, but that’s really what we’re talking about.
I agree that it is wrong for our government to subsidize the telecommunication industry, or any industry for that matter. However, do you think it’s honest to say that “empires” such as AT&T and Verizon have been built with government dollars? If one were to go through the books of these companies since their founding, do you really believe that the majority of their financing will be payments or other giveaways from the government? I don’t mean to offend, but I think that your statement is a gross exaggeration. These companies, whether you like them or not, earn their profits by offering their services to customers who pay for them.
I also don’t understand why you fault telecoms want to “gouge” content providers and their customers for more money when you also admit that it will cost a lot of money to bring broadband to all homes. If it costs billions of dollars to build a quality network that provides everyone with broadband, shouldn’t the business try to recover their costs? How will they survive if they don’t?
I think that the issue of net neutrality comes down the issue of property rights. I believe that people should be able to own property and control what is done with that property, so long as their use of their property does not prevent others from exercising their own rights. If that principle is applied to the issue of who should control the the telecom companies’ property, the answer is clear: The telecom companies.
If a telecom company uses bad wire, restricts its service to only rich neighborhoods, slows down its customers’ access to some sites, or anything else that would result in bad service and angry customers, the company does so at its own peril. Any company that does not give its customers what it wants is doomed to fail. Business can’t survive without making enough money to pay their expenses, and nobody will invest in their business if there is not a chance of making a profit.
If you believe that “the buyers will determine what services really work and what don’t” you should be against net neutrality or any other government regulation that takes the internet out of the free market.
1. Darren - May 1, 2007
First, it’s not correct that the internet was “built with your tax dollars.” The internet started as government venture, but the private sector has made it what it is today.
I started talking about the issue of government regulation because you claimed that net neutrality was not government regulation. Or, at least, you said that it wasn’t “active” regulation.
My problem with net neutrality is that it ignores the property rights of internet service providers. They built the networks that we use the access the internet with their own resources (please just hear me out before you jump on that). It was their money that laid the lines down, it is their money that keeps their networks going. What’s made out as a policy decision “we” should make about the “internet” is really a takeover of someone else’s property. What used to be private property will now be controlled, to some extent, by the government. I think that is unjust.
I believe that every individual has the fundamental right to his or her own life, including the right to own what he or she earns. Property rights are essential to living your life, and the role of government should be to protect your rights. In all of the arguments I’ve heard from you or other net neutrality advocates about how net neutrality will make the internet better, I haven’t heard one person address issues such as what the individual’s rights are, what the role of government should be in our lives, or how we should treat private property. These issues are essential to the debate. If you believe that these companies don’t have a right to control their lines, shouldn’t you start with that? Say, “These companies aren’t satisfying our desire for cheap, fast internet, so we need to take over their property,” or “The role of government is to make our lives easier, and in this case its power should be used to control ISPs,” or something that better explains the fundamental reasons why people should be forced to act in the way you want on this issue. Because when you bring the government into the equation, it’s not a question of what one *should* do, it’s a question of what one *must* do.
I don’t care about this particular issue so much as I care about the broader issue of individual rights. I don’t think there is any justification for one man to force another man to act against his own will (so long as his will doesn’t violate another man’s rights). And what is a company if it is not an association of men and women, each with the same rights as if they were alone? You can’t take away a company’s rights without violating individual rights. I do not believe in “the ends justify the means” argument when the “means” is the violation of individual rights, even if the “ends” is internet access faster than 384kbps.
Now to go back to my “they build the networks that we use to access the internet with their own resources” comment, I understand that some telecoms use government power to make money. Their actions are wrong and they make it harder for me to sit here and defend their rights when they’re guilty of the stunts that net neutrality advocates are trying to pull. However, the solution to this is not to continue to use the government to violate individual rights in order to resolve perceived “inequities.” And be honest: Net neutrality isn’t going to break the link between government and big business, it won’t increase broadband access, it won’t make the internet faster, or resolve any of the other issues you have with big telecom companies.
Tags: [intellectual property, net neutrality, save the internet]Comments
3 Responses to “Net Neutrality”
Leave a Reply
Darren, I have been following the net neutrality debate in my work with the Hands Off the Internet coalition. Unfortunately, given the importance of the issue, I have seen numerous net neutrality supporters using baseless claims that our freedom is under attack and mentioned of evil corporations to rally support for their cause.
I also completely agree with you in that keeping the internet the way it is now means not passing legislation, such as Snowe-Dorgan, that mandates government interference in the operation of the internet. Additionally, there is a common misconception used by supporters that net neutrality is the status quo when in fact these principles have never applied to cable broadband connections, which account for a majority of all broadband connections.
You may find this Guardian article interesting as it discusses the tactics of Save the Internet and notes the warnings being issued by some of the most senior network engineers like Robert Kahn.
“Save The Internet took full advantage of rational fears, argues veteran internet engineer Richard Bennett, but in doing so, it created “an Intelligent Design for the Left”.
The gap between fear and reality is even more stark when the technical issues are examined. The Neutrality amendments rejected by Congress last year would have made many of today’s private contracts illegal, and outlawed the techniques such as “traffic shaping” that ISPs use to curb bandwidth hogs, says Bennett.
Even worse was the long-term chilling effect. Neutrality would have made designing a better internet much harder, says the man commonly described as the father of the internet.
Dr Robert Kahn says that Neutrality legislation poses a fundamental threat to internet research because it misunderstands what the internet really is; it’s a network of networks, and experimentation on private networks must be encouraged.”The internet has never been neutral,” explains Crowcroft. “Without traffic shaping, we won’t get the convergence that allows the innovation on TV and online games that we’ve seen in data and telephony.”
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2049763,00.html
Additionally, as you mentioned, should an ISP block access or degrade content, they do so at their own peril and to the detriment of their business. Plus, any such action could be addressed by current laws and regulations.
Thanks and I found your debate on S&R to be very interesting.
Thank you for your comment, and thanks for your work with the Hands Off the Internet organization. I really enjoy the HOTI blog, too. Not only do I think the blog makes good points, it’s also a pretty entertaining read.
Thanks for posting the article. I read it, and there is another great quote that I want to share:
[…] Internet, we thought we’d point up a small bit of praise from one of the many (and growing) number of bloggers skeptical about the whole “net neutrality” gambit: Thank you for your comment, and […]