Should the Government Regulate Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the Internet should be treated equally. But with more people streaming data-rich video and playing online games, the Internet faces congestion concerns. Should carriers be able to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users? Should sites that generate massive traffic -- like Google and Yahoo! -- pay extra fees? The U.S. Government is examining Net Neutrality and its financial, legal and social implications. Do we need federal intervention to ensure fairness, or is this an issue for the market to work out?
Why is this on the "No" side?
On guarantees...
I completely disagree with the statement "...chances are good that such a bill will be right in most ways." I've never known a piece of regulation like Net Neutrality to be "right in most ways". Odds are quite the opposite. For instance: Cato brings up the ICC in a later argument, and more recently, there is the whole ethanol subsidy that causes food to be more expensive in order to pursue an energy-inefficient alternative to oil.
To answer your question "Why is this on the No side?":
You precede from a false assumption - Cato is a libertarian organization and its default position is to oppose the creation of most new laws (and supports removal of many existing laws). Thus, the libertarian aim is to "enshrine" as little as possible in law, for the very reason that is extremely hard to change once enacted, most laws tend to have adverse side effects, and that most laws have no business being laws in the first place under the Constitution. "Enshrining" is the domain of religion, not good, limited government anyway.
Net Neutrality, in all it's ill-defined incarnations, should never be law.
- strawhatguy
August 31, 2008 6:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ill Defined?
Net Neutrality is not ill-defined. It is quite well defined as not adversely affecting the packets transiting an ISPs network in an excessively negative way.
Comcast's forgery of RST (Reset) packets to both source and destination is one such example of adversely affecting the packets. They are basically performing a Man-in-the-Middle attack with their forging of packets and disrupting traffic flow across their portion of the internet.
The principle does not say you cant give priority where such would be beneficial for all users but it does say that you should not be willfully interfering the delivery of packets. Packets can and should get to their destination eventually. What does not matter is that VOIP packets get the fast lane while Bittorrent gets the slow lane, what does matter is when you throw up a roadblock in front of the slow lane and only let traffic in the middle and fast lanes to go through.
- Concerned Citizen
September 3, 2008 8:18AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Benefit to all users?
So who decides what is to benefit all users? Some government body? How about when this stifles innovation because innovation is not good for all users?
Also what about the owners? Comcast owns their network. They built it with their money, brains and hard work. They have the right to decide how to regulate their network. Period. They did not build it to benefit anyone but themselves, and they certainly didn't pluck it from a tree. All arguments for net neutrality blank out the owners and builders and pre-suppose the network.
Without the builders, those who actually have a profit motive to see the internet continuing to operate, there is no network for the net neutrality advocates to attempt to seize control. In the areas where there is only one low cost provider, and that provider could limit access. Those people are free to act, they can move, they can raise capital and build a competing service, they can get a T1 run to their house (at considerable but insignificant compared to what Comcast spent to build out and maintain a network to their house) or they can have no internet.
Governments role is the protection of rights. There can be no right to a good or service that must be created by another. Your comment shows some technical proficiency. So let me assume you are a network professional. You probably build networks or systems for money. This is how you survive. If a customer of yours stops paying you, or only wants to pay you to come on site for 4 hours a month, do they have the right to demand the same service a customer who pays you for 24x7 retainer? They can have no right to the fruit of your labor and mind except as agreed to voluntarily by you. If you change your rates to require payment for working with one set of equipment or software versus another they have no right to demand to pay the lower rate and get the better service. This analogy applies directly to what you are demanding of Comcast and every other ISP.
- McLazarus
September 4, 2008 8:17AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bottlenecks
The portions of the network owned by Comcast and other ISPs are classic examples of bottleneck assets and, as such, are justly regulated as any other bottleneck is (think bridges, highways and, yes, local loops owned by telcos).
Your analysis is flawed as it applies to the earlier commenter: unless he is the only or one of a few such professionals, he doesn't represent a bottleneck.
- JKFriedman
September 4, 2008 11:08AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"assets" are still someones property
Many home consumers have the option of Verizon FiOS, Comcast cable, DSL from many providers. But you said even a few would indicate a bottleneck. As such does that mean that the best brain surgeon in the world must become my slave if I need brain surgery because he is a bottleneck between me and my right to life? I know this is a further stretch of my analogy, but it is the same thing violating the rights of one person for the benefit of another.
Where did these "assets" come from? The were produced, by Comcast for their purposes. Your term of them as assets tries to smuggle in the idea that I have a right to dictate terms on their property because they were they only ones to build that bridge to the internet in my neighborhood.
The discussion is further muddied by things like common carrier and all the other governmental involvement and public property and public rights of way. But there is an excellent article about the power grid that addresses most of this and shows how government regulation has hindered not helped in this matter, that can be found here: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/property-rights-electric-grid.asp As the analysis is detailed and completely applies to internet I recommend anyone really interested, not just looking for handouts, in net neutrality dig into this.
- McLazarus
September 4, 2008 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Points -- But Another Flawed Analogy
You make some excellent points and thanks for the link to the article. I will read it when I get a chance -- hopefully this weekend.
However, your analysis ignores history and, as such, fails since the vast majority of US government economic regulation is based on history -- the history of abuse.
A brain surgeon is a person; an ISP is a corporation. Government typically requires more of the latter than the former. I'm not trying to "smuggle" anything: corporate assets that are bottlenecks are properly the target of regulation. NOT because they are bottlenecks, per se, but because history has proven (again, and again, and again, and, if NN isn't codified, it will be proven yet again) that all corporate actors are would-be monopolists. Most simply haven't the effective opportunity to live up to their desire. Because of the massive sunk costs involved with building communications networks, however, the actors capable of marshalling such resources are provided with an effective opportunity. And, as history shows, when opportunity and desire coincide . . . well, the Bell System and Standard Oil are telling stories of how corporate desire and opportunity, unchecked by effective regulation, permit the big to beat the small, the rapacious to overwhelm the modest, the bottleneck to be used as a brickbat. Thus common carriage (which isn't muddying anything -- the provision of 'net services by ISPs is so close to common carriage that the FCC had to declare that it wasn't common carriage -- and we all know that when the government insists that some thing "is" or "isn't" that the truth is usually 180 degrees away from the government's description (see, e.g., the statutory prohibition against labeling universal service "subsidies" as "taxes" -- they're clearly taxes as they are government-mandated payments (the very essence of taxation)). I apologize for the nested parens -- I get carried away!. Title II of the Communications Act governing common carriage was a response to the formation of the Bell System by the means employed by its managers -- not a response to the Bell System per se. Same with NN. Your arguement would be stronger if Comcast hadn't lied and hemmed and hawed about its cloning of reset packets.
Brain surgeons, unlike corporations, are generally motivated by doing good. Corporations, properly, are interested in maximizing profits. They serve different societal purposes. Sure, the former can abhor any societal purpose and dedicated his/her life to the consumption of epic quantities of alcohol or heroin. But corporations are purely creatures of society -- they exist only due to statutory provision. They cannot, therefore, abandon society's benefit. They can abhor it, but they can't flee it (not successfully anyway).
- JKFriedman
September 4, 2008 12:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
coorporation vs individual
While I disagree that there is any conflict between profit and "the good." I appreciate your response. I also appreciate that law is dictated by historical precedent, I do caution that just because something "was always this way" it doesn't mean it is right or conducive to a free society.
I intend to investigate the ideas behind corporation vs. the individual. However, I still contend that property rights, even for corporations, must be absolute and not subject to the whims of others.
Thanks.
- McLazarus
September 4, 2008 1:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes Benefit to all users...
Well I would presume a panel of experts that are not necessarily bound to the companies that are the cause of many net neutrality problems.
Comcast may 'own' the network but I do believe if you do digging that they were either given public money directly for many of the projects for building their network or alternatively were given 'monopoly' rights over cable in a given geographic region which has the same effect as giving public money to them to build their network. There is no question about profit since theoretically they can set their prices as high or as low as they feel like and people will have to deal with it.
The problem with your suggestion to built a competing service also falls on its face. You will not be permitted to build a cable network where one already exists. Just like you probably wont be permitted to build your own phone network where one already exists to provide DSL as many DSL providers have 'Monopoly Rights' agreements with places they service as well.
I have a degree in an IT discipline so you could consider me to have some technical proficiency. The thing is if someone stops paying then they wont get any service barring extenuating circumstances (things such as having a record as a good customer or someone who's given us lots of referrals). Also the customer who pays you for 4 hours a day vs the one who pays you for 24x7 service get the same service for the hours they've paid for. So the person with 4 hours will get 4 hours of high quality service but the person with 24x7 service will get high quality service whenever they need it. Naturally I'd have enough employees on hand to deal with 24x7 clients as well as the 4 hour a month ones.
Why would I change my rates to require payment for different types of software except as a requirement for purchasing the software/licenses in the first place (which is another topic of debate all together)? Software is software is software. I'm not out to screw my customer because screwed customers do not come back (unless you're a monopoly, see above) and do not refer you to friends and business associates.
- Concerned Citizen
September 4, 2008 7:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.