A Net in Neutral?
From a post on HOTI today, I came across an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune titled “A Net in neutral.” HOTI criticized some statistical issues with the article, but I don’t think they hit the article enough. I think the article was inaccurate and a bit biased in the way it presented the net neutrality, and I’ll explain why.
Andrew Odlyzko, a net neutrality advocate, is the central figure in this article. Near the beginning is states (emphasis mine):
But what the slowdown in traffic growth means to Odlyzko is that the debate about the future of the Internet needs to tilt toward encouraging more use, not restricting it.
First, the net neutrality advocates are the people that are trying to add restrictions to internet access, not those that are against net neutrality. Net neutrality, by its definition, is a restriction on what ISPs can do with their own pipes. If an ISP wants to modify the way it handles and prioritizes traffic on its own network, net neutrality would restrict it from doing anything except treating every bit the same. I bet that a net neutrality advocate would say that they want to restrict the ability of ISPs to restrict their networks, but that’s not true. There are all types of restrictions placed on customers by their ISPs that affect the type and quality of the internet access. Most notably, their restriction that demands you pay a fee for the internet access they give you.
I’m not trying to play a word-game with “restriction,” I just think that net neutrality is an issue where some context is needed before criticizing the idea of restricting internet access and use. If you start to define who set up and owns the pipes the internet runs on, who provided you with the internet access, and the proper role of government when it comes to private property, you’ll find that the net neutrality advocates are people that are trying to add true restrictions to the internet — restrictions that are enforced by the government that nobody can bypass. If an individual creates a more efficient way to handle the changing traffic demands of the internet, net neutrality advocates say “Nope, can’t do that. We can’t allow you to control what you do with your own computer network.” Who is really the proponent for restrictions on the internet?
The article continues:
He’s referring to congressional debate during the past year over “net neutrality” — the issue of whether everyone’s Internet traffic should be treated equally (as neutrality backers say), or whether high-volume senders of data should be charged more.
Net neutrality is not the issue of whether everyone’s Internet traffic should be treated equally, it is the issue whether everyone’s Internet traffic must be treated equally. If net neutrality advocates want to try to persuade ISPs and their customers that the better way to handle internet traffic is to treat all bits the same, I have no issue with them. I’d disagree, but they’re free to believe and say what they want. Where they cross the line, however, is when they try to use the power of the government to enforce their idea. At that point they are no longer trying to persuade us to the merits of their argument, they are trying to force us to follow their advice. Dropping the government-action part of their crusade might make it easier to gain supporters, but they’re just not presenting their full platform honestly.
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that we traveled to some sort of Bizarro World where net neutrality advocates were trying to pass legislation that prevented ISPs from treating bits equally. I’d argue against those people for the same reasons as I argue against the net neutrality advocates of this world. This isn’t about how to handle internet traffic as much as it is about the issue of private property.
Tags: [net neutrality]Comments
One Response to “A Net in Neutral?”
Leave a Reply
[…] Cauthon presents A Net in Neutral? posted at Darren Cauthon, saying, “I don’t know if this subject matter is what this […]