The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has completed their draft on changes to telecommunication law, and perhaps no surprise, there is nothing in the text which could be understood to prevent providers from tiering service. (C Net, as always, has an article which does an excellent job of explaining neutrality and the various arguments).
Numerous scholars and net companies have spoken out in favor of neutrality principles, and now even one of the Net’s founders is sharing his views (see: Battle for the Web). Tim Berners-Lee went on record as saying, “The whole point of the Web is when you arrive it’s more or less the same for everybody. That integrity is really essential. … I’m very concerned.” Larry Lessig is also pointing out that the move away from neutrality is a backwards move towards asking government to help dictate the structure of the net. However, ArsTechnica is stating that the issue of network neutrality is “not dead yet.”
What it all comes down to is the idea that government can exist to enhance civic life and commerce through subsidizing the creation of a commons. The creation of the postal system, roadways, regulation of the Bell telephone monopoly, and the gift of the DOD’s DARPA-NET are all examples of this. In each case, a content neutral network was created with help from the government to create something that everyone (business and individuals) has enormously benefited from.
Consumers are going to have to pay for infrastructure upgrades no matter which way things go. Why should we sacrifice what so many believe to be a good thing when the outcome is the same?
I agree that government has a role to play in promoting civic life and aiding commerce. I just don’t think that net neutrality is the ideal example. You are neglecting another important reason why the Internet has flourished, which is that government has resisted the urge to tax and regulate it.
The fact is that if companies provide inferior service, customers will notice (wouldn’t you?). Customers tend to dislike paying more for less, so they’ll abandon any service offering that particular bargain. By allowing the free market to work, we are granting companies the latitude to serve their client base.
tpwk is right. government regulation tends to stymie innovation. moreover, comsumers have both the free market and current FCC authority to protect them from a provider who limits access or raises rates significantly.
Thanks very much for the comments. While the debate about the utility of government regulation is another conversation (it has helped in many cases, and has hurt in many others), I still believe that this is one excellent case where something is needed to keep a level playing field.
I stated before that I think having the wires and routing of the Internet network operate neutrally was a strong motivator for all of the successful net companies. It’s true: not having government regulation under this system was a good thing. Yet, I think taking away neutrality will effectively create a type of regulation where those who can afford better access are favored over others. This will decrease competition on the net.
Another problem is that broadband service providers are monopolies or near monopolies, so there really is no choice of service at this point (believe me, if I could leave my provider, I would), and thus no real chance for any sort of market effects. I would say that they’re essentially going to the government for permission (regulation) to alter how their service works. Perhaps what I’m saying is that, in a non-neutral net, it will create more regulation and litigation from disputes over control of the fast track and from providers who limit access.
I’ll confess, much of my feelings on the issue can be attributed to Lessig. If you haven’t checked out Code (esp. chapters 7 and 8 ), I’d highly recommend it.
John, See Dave Greenfield’s article at http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/net_neutrality_2.html
According to his article, the vast majority of broadband customers in the US have a choice of more than two ISPs, so although a minority may not have a choice, since most do, the free market should still work its magic.
John, all of the examples you sight only go to prove that government intereference was a major failure for those industries from a business point of view. The Post Office has never made any money, the rail lines are in constant need of subsidy (because of government regulations), and the net became a boom only after it left the damning hands of government control. While I’m sure we both appreciate the internet, the best way to see it continue to succeed is to keep the hands of that “impetuous vortex” off.
pkp–I think you’re absolutely right. Inviting Congress to regulate an industry whose innovation is (in large part) due to a LACK of governmental regulation doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Readers of this comment thread should know that oldhats and pkp646 are part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality or rleated issues to argue against any government regulation of the telephone companies. Other names who run with this crowd are John Rice, lessgov, AJ Carey and Paulaner01. (Google any of these names in combination and you’ll see how their game works).
By tag-teaming the blogs, this small handful of individuals gives the false impression of broad popular support for an telco-friendly position.
What they fail to point out is that Net Neutrality has been the rule that has governed access to the Internet since its inception. It’s the reason that the Internet has become such a dynamic force for new ideas, economic innovation and free speech. What they really want is for Congress to radically re-write our telecommunications laws so that companies like AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth can swoop in and become gatekeepers to Internet content — in a way that benefits no one except the largest ISPs.
I’d like these people to tell us how it is that they appear together (usually one after the other) spouting identical industry talking points.
What gives fellas? Are you being paid to do this? And by whom?