Sorry about the delay in replying to recent comments, it’s been a busy few days (and I never honestly expected to have any readers…guess that’s the magic of trackback). While networks and economics aren’t really my specialty, I appreciate the chance to have a good discussion about such an important issue. I can see that there’s a need to clarify some of my thinking, so here are the main reasons why I think network neutrality is something to value (from least to most important).
- Network economics: I’m still searching for where I heard recently that, while broadband availability is on the rise, most only have a choice of one service (more research on this fact is desperately needed for an informed debate). If this is in fact the case, it strengthens the argument that broadband ISPs are acting as a monopoly or oligopoly, or that there isn’t really enough competition to create market effects. This isn’t the most important point, however, because I would argue that decisions can and should be made for reasons other than just what the market may or may not provide.
- The commons and progress: Historical examples offer one of these reasons, for they show many instances of where the government has actively taken part in creating a commons on which both individuals and commerce can benefit.
- The early postal system was a large motivating factor in the creation of national roadways, created physical locations where people would meet and discuss issues of the day, and was a source of pride for early Americans (I realize this is a controversial claim, so I’ll provide a cite: Spreading the News, Richard R. John).
- Early copyright required individuals to register their works and deposit them with the Library of Congress, which quickly created one of the nation’s greatest libraries at low cost to creators.
- The interstate system is open so that WalMart, Mom n’ Pop’s freight, and the public as a whole can benefit from the system.
- Finally, in the early telephone monopoly, regulation drove network development and spread out the costs of doing so.
- In each case, with the exception of the job of managing the commons, there has been no barrier of entry to anyone who wishes to use the network to their benefit. I would argue that removing neutrality would create such barriers (since start-ups may not be able to afford access). In my mind, the success of a commons need not always be measured monetarily, but rather in terms of social benefit (for more on all of this, a good book is Paul Starr’s The Creation of the Media).
- Preserving the end-to-end: This is where I think the true value of the above examples of commons lie. The idea behind end-to-end is that whatever is getting transmitted (be it cars, packets, or envelopes) gets delivered without regard for content or sender. The architecture places all of the “intelligence” at the ends, or in the applications. This content and sender neutral design allows any application designer to have a theoretically equal chance as any other because the network works the same for all of them. Neutral design left low barriers of entry to Internet business, while a tiered design would break this principle and make it more difficult for smaller Internet start-ups. Further, getting more out of the resources available has driven business and innovation further (video compression being one good example). The end-to-end principle is what makes the Internet, the Internet. Network neutrality and redundancy is what makes it so flexible, reliable, and resistant to physical attack. From my perspective, this debate tangentially is addressing the question of who is going to pay for network development. I believe sacrificing one of the crucial features of the Internet is an indirect way to solve this problem. (For more on the benefits of end-to-end design, see Lemley & Lessig’s “The end of end-to-end.”)
To me, maintaining this openness is the ultimate form of non-regulation, it allows users of the network to do whatever they choose within the bounds of the law. By regulating the commons provider, the online market is enabled to flourish. I would argue the debate shouldn’t be about limiting access, but rather about maintaining the integrity of the network architecture. Perhaps the most important thing at this point, if it’s not too late, would be to gather the necessary data about the problem to rise the debate above theory and rhetoric.
Cheers,
-john
Hi John – you make some really good points (great post office reference!) but I think I’m a little less worried than you are that ISPs will start to interfere with the way you and I and everyone else uses the Internet. In a cut-throat market, any provider that tried to do this would get dropped almost immediately for one that played by the rules. We don’t need Congress to point out bad business decisions – the consumer will make it abundantly clear!
Unfortunately, when looking at broadband, many don’t have such freedom to choose providers. And when looking at who has been testifying against neutrality, it’s pretty clear that all ISPs are on the same page.
The heart of this problem, which is little reflected in debate, is that destroying the end-to-end principle is something that won’t be readily noticeable to Internet users. Any content provider who requires a good deal of bandwidth (YouTube.com, as one example) will immediately notice the change, and we’ll all start noticing when fewer and fewer YouTubes achieve viability.
With Web 2.0 becoming such a big deal, it’s a tough time to put the crunch on content providers.
John, I’d argue that, in fact, the vast majoority of broadband customers in the US have a choice of more than 2 ISPs…
John- While I know that you mention it as a minor point in your argument, I really think the competition idea should get a greater notice here. While actual options may currently be limited, investment in devoloping these options would explode should a market develop, especially for satellite and wi-fi providers. I’m just not convinced that supporting any legislation that seeks to regulate something that is already the case makes good sense.
I’m also not sure I concede the premise that competition cannot provide a solution. A customer only has one provider, they do have the ability to decide whether they want to pay for premium services. Who would pay for a premium service in which they can’t get the access they want? Again, I don’t think we can ask government to intervene without compelling evidence that such intervention is necessary.
Readers of this comment thread should know that oldhats, pkp646 and Paulaner01 are part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the telephone companies. Other names who run with this crowd are John Rice, lessgov and AJ Carey. (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 industry-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?
I see no evidence provided that these people tag-team blogs to make individuals look like they are the minority. Though I guess I could just be part of the conspiracy as well.
I agree with some of the postings above and largely with you John. Net Neutrality is a great thing at the highest level statement of it. The internet pipes, access to them and what’s done on them should be free and unfiltered. But tell me how another couple hundred to thousand pages of legislation is going to ensure that’s the only thing that happens? The road projects you site for intrastate commerce are a great thing which was less then 100 pages to create.
How about maintenance today? Are the roads maintained in an efficient and orderly fashion? Or is it that roads are tolled still, even with the regulation to create them in the first place. A lot of roads aren’t “free” as suggested. yes, there are many that are, but the government hasn’t said all roads need to be paid for through taxation as there are micro additional taxes levied on those that use certain roads specifically.
Again though, it’s not that we really disagree that Net Nuet is important, it’s that I want less regulation and less involvement. Of course an industry will cry fowl on being regulated, they don’t want hoops to have to jump through (no one does). I just haven’t seen compelling evidence to suggest that these companies are doing illegitimate things to block access. And I’ve seen what countries who DO regulate the internet do with that power (china, iran as quick, recent news examples). Don’t think that just because it happens elsewhere doesn’t mean it would never happen here :\