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
ARI on Net Neutrality
The Ayn Rand Institute just put out a post against the recent increase in activity by those who want net neutrality. It can be read over at the Objectivist Standard.
Tags: [ari, net neutrality]“‘Net neutrality’ is the idea that ISPs should not be able to favor some types of data over others; they must be ‘neutral’ toward all the data they carry. But just as cable companies have a right to apportion their bandwidth between Internet and television data, so Internet providers have a right to apportion their bandwidth between standard and premium Internet data.”
Comments
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
Viruses use bits, too
I just read a short post, titled “Dangerous Online Liaisons,” at Hands off the Internet. In it, the author makes an important, and funny, point that net neutrality advocates won’t address. The sentence highlighted below (emphasis mine) literally made me laugh-out-loud:
Second, this article illustrates yet again the need for packet management on the network. To be blunt, when DOS, spear phishing or polymorphic virus attacks are unleashed, a bit is definitely not a bit on the network – no matter how frequently or earnestly the net neutrality proponents make that argument.
Net neutrality advocates can talk all day about how “fair” to force ISPs to treat all bits “equally,” but what about the bits that we definitely want to stop? Is “discrimination” still bad if it is being used to blunt the effects of computer attacks? Not only will net neutrality prevent ISPs from managing their networks in a way that provide the best service for their customers, it will also prevent ISPs from taking steps that might help to prevent the effects of computer attacks.
Tags: [net neutrality]Comments
Pearl Jam and Censorship
Last week, Pearl Jam announced that AT&T had edited a portion of their Lollapalooza webcast. During the performance, the lead singer made some harmless statements against George Bush. AT&T admitted they did so, but it was a mistake. Many people don’t agree with them, and it renewed some calls for… net neutrality?
Net neutrality is the idea that the government should mandate that internet service providers must treat all data bits over their network equally. Email bits must be treated the same as video bits, the same as gaming bits, etc. Not only is this a poor way to administer a computer network (different data formats, like video, have heavier demands than others), it ignores the private property rights of the individuals who own the computer network. If you own computers or a computer network, you should have the right to control what is done with your property — even if you allow other people to use your property access the internet.
What is the relation between AT&T’s edits of Pearl Jam’s performance and the government regulation of ISPs? Well, net neutrality advocates are using this as an example of why we can’t trust big telecoms to administer their networks in a way that best serves the “public interest.” Big telecom companies like AT&T have a duty to provide individuals with free and open access, and when they edited Pearl Jam’s song lyrics they demonstrated the fact that they can and will edit content according to their own standards. That, according to net neutrality advocates, is censorship and a violation of their rights, especially their free speech rights. AT&T is not acting responsibly, so the government should step in and mandate how they run their business. And the first step should be to control how they handle network traffic.
The missing context in their complaint is the fact that the so-called “censorship” Pearl Jam faced was a private organization that did not want to play their lyrics
And, like any person or organization who exercises his or her own rights, AT&T will have suffer the consequences of their actions. The news release from Pearl Jam offered an appropriate quote from Edward Whitacre, former CEO of AT&T:
Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider.
If you are a Lollapalooza organizer and you don’t like the fact that AT&T edited the performances of your bands, are you going to go with AT&T the next time you need a company to broadcast your event online? Not likely.
Anyone who wants to protect the right to free speech should be against net neutrality. Net neutrality attacks one of the essential requirements for free speech: private property. The right to free speech can’t stand up for long without the right to private property. If you want to write something, you have to be allowed to own pen and paper. If you want to write something on the internet, you have to be able to own a computer. And if you want to proclaim your views to the world, you need to be able to own a soapbox to stand on. Net neutrality attacks the concept of private property by demanding that the government strip telecom companies of their right to control their own computer networks. Yes, it will take more government regulation than net neutrality to affect our right to free speech over the internet, but net neutrality advocates have no problem with that. Net neutrality, by itself, won’t bring about the cheap, fast, and easily accessible internet that net neutrality advocates claim to want. Their recent calls for government action in relation to the spectrum that television companies is proof of that.
Finally, I have to respectfully disagree with the guys over at Hands off the Internet when they say that this situation has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality advocates want others to believe that government intervention is necessary for the internet to work, and cases like this one provide them with ammunition. Also, the best argument against what Pearl Jam and its supporters is the same argument that should be used against net neutrality: People should be free to own and control their own property.
Tags: [net neutrality, pearl jam]Comments
Everybody wins!
No matter how you feel on the issue of net neutrality, you might find this amusing.
Recently, the state of Maine passed legislation that instructs Maine’s Office of the Public Advocate (whatever that means) to “monitor state and federal activity relating to full and fair access to the Internet” and release a report on it next year. The original intent of this legislation was to pass net neutrality law in Maine, but this is all they could get.
So how do the pro-net-neutrality and anti-net-neutrality sides treat this issue? They both announce victory!
For the anti-net-neutrality side, we have Hands Off the Internet: It’s Official, Maine Rejects Net Neutrality.
For the pro-net-neutrality side, we have Save the Internet: Maine Leads the Way on Net Neutrality.
I think the HOTI guys got it right.
Tags: [maine, net neutrality]Comments
Rational net neutrality debate
Though net-neutrality opponents, like myself, might not have a big petition drive with over a million clicks, there still quite a few of us. And one opponent, George Ou, posted a great article on net neutrality titled “A rational debate on Net Neutrality.” It gets into the technical information about net neutrality, debunks the myth that net neutrality used to exist, and explains the Ed Whitacre quotes that net neutrality advocates love to throw out. It’s a good read, check it out.
I still think, though, that arguing against net neutrality as a practical or legal issue won’t work in the long term. If we get to the point where people no longer respect one another, then it’s only a matter of time until we get net neutrality or all kinds of things that are much, much worse. Still, it’s great to read articles like this, and if he keeps arguing his points I’ll keep hitting the individual rights angle.
Tags: [net neutrality]Comments
Net neutrality honesty (2)
Kevin from ktracy.com has replied to a few of the recent posts I’ve written about net neutrality. Since it’s been a few days since I last responded and I don’t have too much time to write tonight, I’m going to respond in a new post.
In response to comment #3:
You’ve addressed the private property issue, but you still haven’t given a full answer.
You said:
The government sometimes needs to protect the welfare of individuals by making laws, limiting you to what you do on and with private property. This is an example of such a situation.
But what you haven’t answered is why this is a case were the government needs to protect the “welfare of individuals.”
And which individuals, by the way? What about the stockholders of ISPs who lose the right to their property?
Just to bring this back to the issue at hand, what we’re talking about here is data prioritation over private computer networks. We’re not talking about crazy gunmen or arsonists like the examples you stated, but people that might want to make some websites faster than others (for any reason). If an issue like this is grounds enough for government intervention, what isn’t?
As I’ve written before, net neutrality, by itself, can’t create the “free” and “open” internet its advocates desire. ISPs may not be able to discriminate-by-bit if net neutrality passes, but what about other forms of “discrimination” they use? What if they decide not to upgrade their network because they don’t think they can make a profit? What if potential competitors to existing ISPs choose not to go into business because they’re worried about government regulation? Or, what about the ultimate form of ISP discrimination of limiting network access only to those who will pay $40 a month? If the government should protect our “welfare” for the purpose of creating a better internet, then exactly how far do net neutrality advocates want the government regulation to go? Price controls? An internet tax? Should the government run all internet access businesses?
Questions like these go farther than net neutrality advocates are willing to go when they push their agenda.
As for the examples you gave, they were examples of people violating another individual’s rights. If you shoot someone, you’re violating their right to their life. if you set your dry land on fire, you are violating your neighbor’s right to their own property (assuming that the conditions will create an uncontrollable fire that will spread outside of your land). These are not cases of the government restricting private property rights, but enforcing private property rights.
Tags: [net neutrality]Comments
Net neutrality honesty
Last night, I wrote a post about how net neutrality advocates never admit to what they are really after. Rather than explain that they want the government to seize control of private property, they just tell people that they just want the internet to be “fair.” As such, I believe that much of the support they claim is comprised of people who don’t understand what net neutrality actually is.
To help prove my point, a net neutrality advocate commented on my post. In his response to my post about how net neutrality advocates refuse to address the private property question, he ignored everything I said about government and property. Instead, he just said that net neutrality is about the “free marketplace of ideas” and “choice” and “freedom from corporate restrictions.” How? What do those things mean? Do they ever explain?
There are a few things in his comment that I want to respond to:
He wrote:
… His reply was an analogy that was much better than yours, comparing the internet to a highway instead of a vitamin pill and saying access shouldn’t be limited to only 12-wheelers or in this case, websites with multi-million dollar budgets.
First of all, I never compared the internet to a vitamin pill. I used the vitamin pill case as a way to explain the difference between someone saying you should do something as opposed to saying the government should make someone do something. I brought it up only to explain this idea in a way that people might understand better than computer networks.
But as for the analogy he attributes to Mike Huckabee, it was “The Internet is a highway and we don’t restrict highways to 18-wheelers… if it’s a car, an SUV, or a truck, you use the same highway.” and can be read on the poster’s website. Comparing the internet to a highway in that way has a problem. Highways are built with tax dollars, but the internet is built with private dollars. A better analogy would be to compare the internet to a private racetrack, and net neutrality advocates to whiners who don’t think it’s fair that the racetrack owner gets to decide who rides on the track.
But Net Neutrality isn’t about the government telling Comcast and other ISPs what to do. It’s about telling them what NOT to do.
What is the difference between telling Comcast what it can’t do and what it has to do? The two are the same. The government is still telling private individuals what can be done with their own property.
What they want to do could eventually lead to the internet being like radio or cable television where everyone can see content, but not everyone can post content.
This is a great example of how net neutrality advocates throw out fantasy scenarios and claim that net neutrality is the only way to stop them from happening. Let’s just think about this for a second. What would any internet surfer do if his ISP put restrictions on his ability to post content on the internet. The surfer would move to another ISP. Any ISP that dares to restrict its customers will not be able to sustain itself for very long.
But let’s think about it even more. How would an ISP stop individuals from posting content on the internet, even if it wanted to? Like, how could Comcast stop me from writing this post? They never explain.
And as a Republican, I believe net neutrality is essential to maintaining and building upon the free marketplace of goods and ideas. It’s about choice for the surfer and it’s about freedom from corporate restrictions for the artists, webmasters, and bloggers.
What does any of this mean? I’ll explain what is meant by “corporate restrictions.” Corporate restrictions means a corporation’s right to control what is done with its own property. When a corporation exercises its property rights, net neutrality advocates say that you are being restricted. Restricted from what, access to someone else’s property?
But like I said in the first post, this is how net neutrality advocates argue their position. They won’t have an honest debate about the principle issues involved. They just want to trick people into agreeing to something they don’t understand.
Tags: [net neutrality]Comments
How to gain support for net neutrality
A recent article on savetheinternet.com announced that Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has joined the net neutrality cause. During a conference call with some bloggers, someone asked Huckabee him for his position on net neutrality. According to the two accounts I’ve read (here and here), Huckabee did not understand what net neutrality was at first. After receiving an “explanation” of net neutrality from the questioner (who happens to be a net neutrality advocate), Huckabee supposedly gave his endorsement.
I have no idea what Huckabee actually said during the conference call, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he really offered his support. I can say this not because I know much about the man or his position on property rights, but because I’ve seen how net neutrality advocates explain their position. They talk about “fairness.” They say that they want a “free and open Internet.” They tell you that broadband companies are about to make your internet connection slower and more expensive. They say that we should “protect” the internet from “discrimination.” They want to save the internet. Those all sound like great things!
But those things are not what net neutrality is about. They won’t explain what they are for, so I will.
Net neutrality is the belief that the government must control how broadband companies handle data transmissions over any privately-owned networks connected to the Internet. The government must do this to ensure that all data is treated the same, regardless of the content or type. Net neutrality holds that it should be illegal for any broadband company to give any data packets priority over any other data packets (i.e. they can’t make content from one website move faster to you than content from another website). All data should be treated the same, or else the government will step in.
In other words, net neutrality is not just a position on computer network administration. It is also a position on whether the government should regulate private computer networks.
I know that talk about computer networks, data, and property rights might be boring, so let me explain it another way. Let’s pretend that someone came up to you to preach about the benefits of vitamin pills. He explains that they will provide your body with all of the vitamins it needs, and that everybody should eat one everyday to stay healthy. You’d probably agree with him. Now let’s pretend that he went one step further and asked you to support a law that would make it a crime for anybody not to eat a vitamin everyday. Would you agree with that? I hope not! Arguing that vitamins are good is one thing, but saying that the government should force everyone to eat them crosses a line. What is that line? Our individual rights.
There is a big difference between saying that someone should do something and that someone must do something. That’s where net neutrality goes wrong. In order to create their ideal internet, they want to use government power to force people to behave how they want.
I wish that net neutrality advocates would openly explain their position, but they know better than that. It is probably easier to get someone to sign an online petition or state that they want “fairness” on the internet (leaving it to the net neutrality advocates to explain what that means later) than it is to convince them that the government should seize control of someone’s private property. And it is your “support” that they after, not your actual agreement with their entire position. They claim to have over a million and a half signatures and the support of their first GOP presidential candidate, so why would they change anything now?
Tags: [government regulation, mike huckabee, net neutrality]