Evidence that net neutrality is coming…
I’ve been very busy the past few weeks. I’m at a weird time when one of my biggest hobbies is also my job. I’ve jumped heads-first into full-time .Net and WPF programming. It’s lots of fun, but it requires a lot of work and study.
Anyway, I probably would have neglected my blog for another night if I hadn’t read tonight’s post on the Hands off the Internet. I normally like HOTI because it’s one of the few blogs (relatively speaking) that actively speak out against net neutrality and government regulation of the internet, but I wanted to yell out “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO” after reading this one. The post was a short one just to point out a quote from a recent Wall Street Journal article on the Comcast-BitTorrent issue, but the fact that they thought this quote was worth highlight makes me believe that there’s nothing to stop government regulation of the internet. Here’s the quote from the WSJ (emphasis mine):
Government’s role here, properly understood, is not to tell Comcast how to manage its network. Rather, it is to make sure consumers have alternatives to Comcast if they are unhappy with their Internet service.
HOTI considers this quote as the “clincher.” NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
If the biggest opponents of net neutrality accept the premise that the government has any role in providing or promoting internet access, they’re doomed. They would have conceeded, in principle, to the net neutrality advocates’ basic argument for net neutrality, which is that an individual’s rights can be trumped by the will of the majority with the assistance of the government. The only real difference between the two sides is how much government intervention is necessary in this market. The net neutrality advocates say a lot, and the net neutrality opponents say a little. Or, more precisely, net neutrality advocates say “The government should create more competition in the ISP market and stop any discrimination of data on an ISP’s network!” and net neutrality opponents reply, “Ok, the government should encourage competition, but hey… there are many practical reasons to discriminate some types of data, ok?”
They won’t say it, so I’ll say it. Net neutrality won’t provide better internet for the same reason that stealing cars won’t provide reliable transportation. No matter what short-term benefits the theft might appear to bring, there is a simple truth that can’t be ignored: Individuals can’t live together if they’re always fighting and stealing from one another. We have to find boundaries that allow every individual to live his or her own life, and then use the government to enforce those boundaries. I’d suggest that one’s life, liberty, and property be boundaries that no other individual can cross. Every individual would have sole ownership and control over his life, what he does with that life, and the property that he rightfully earns with his own work.
Net neutrality is a bad policy because it crosses these boundaries. Net neutrality allows some individuals to take control of the property of others. Yes, the property is lost by big, rich companies like AT&T and Comcast, but why should property rights be decided by who is rich and who is not? I think the right to own property should be respected on principle, not as a rule-of-thumb.
I think there are a lot of net neutrality opponents who don’t agree with this, and I think this is why more government regulation of the internet is inevitable. Unless net neutrality opponents stand up for property rights (even for big businesses like AT&T and Comcast), it’s just a matter of time.
Tags: [HOTI, net neutrality]Comments
Leave a Reply