Again, the main reason I am frustrated with geeks pushing for “net neutrality” is that they are misidentifying the problems and creating straw-men.
Problem #1, the only reason the telco’s and cable companies have the leveraging power today is that they were granted regional monopolies that still exist today. By removing their subsidies and monopolies, free enterprise could make short work of their antiquated rent-seeking business model.
Problem #2, fortunately the FCC does not currently regulate much of the Internet service infrastructure. This would completely change if “net neutrality” becomes a reality. In order to enforce bit non-discrimination, gobs of resources would need to be used to track where all the data is moving to and fro. If you think the revelation of the NSA operating inside each telco was a violation of your privacy (you do know that they literally spliced the fiber into two parts, right?), then your head will twist off after discovering that the FCC will need some kind of hardware point-of-presence within every ISP across the country. Not only is this going to cost a lot of taxpayer money, but so would the continued maintenance and analysis.
Problem #3, not to belittle your economic knowledge, but there is this concept of supply and demand and how mankind utilizes scarce resources. As they currently stand, these Internet providers are by-in-large privately run. The tens of thousands of routers, switches and modems interconnecting various networks across the country are the private property of someone or something. With ownership comes the principle of exclusion, they do not have to serve everyone or every bit the same way, as it is their property. Long story short: they can discriminate how they want, even if it is a seemingly stupid business decision. And by allowing the State to regulate how they operate you would, in effect, be nationalizing their property. One must not also forget the notion of peek-traffic and throttling throughput as well (i.e. charging higher prices during peek times).
I mention all these issues in an article published two weeks ago and posted another follow-up to it yesterday on the Mises blog. Today, The Wall Street Journal noted that net neutrality was one of the most hair-brained schemes that is being proposed: The Web’s Worst Idea. In addition, Declan McCullagh published a new wrinkle to this ongoing drama: Hardware firms oppose Net neutrality laws.
Thanks to DJC for the WSJ link.
Wow, a thoughtful, reasoned, logical post on net neutrality?!?!?! I had lost hope that such a beast still existed.
Comment by DigitalMaven — May 19, 2006 @ 9:51 am
Great post and a great title! The Government’s eye toward regulation would stymy everything that’s made the internet such a massive success and cloud an issue that should be resolved, really, by the consumer’s all-mighty dollar. Where’s Chuck Norris when you REALLY need him?!
Comment by SoCal — May 19, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
Excellent posting! I think you should be presenting to Congress – they need some rational and succint points to see the clear picture on why Net Neutrality will spell disaster for us all!
Comment by Luv2Box — May 20, 2006 @ 9:34 am
The internet has been a useful resource to all who use it, unrestricted and not controlled by the government. Lets fight to keep it this way.
Comment by Katie — May 20, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
One time, some bad guys were trying to regulate the Internet. Instead of delivering his usual roundhouse kick, he questioned the irony of those who openly pine for a “free Internet” wishing so fervently for government squelch the free Internet through regulation. He was about to let them go, but then he discovered they actually worked for Google, and gave them the “Norris fists of fury” in slow motion. Then he gave them bird flu. True story.
Comment by Norrisfan — May 21, 2006 @ 2:02 am
You mean we should listen to the likes of 3M AND Cisco instead of Alyssa Milano, Moby and REM?! I’m outraged!
Comment by hinkey — May 21, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
That’s a lot of good reading, and excellent analysis as well. Here’s hoping the tide turns and we’re able to avoid legislation. If your ‘average American’ comes across the issue as its outlined here, I think most of them will tend to agree that NN is a bad idea.
Comment by 29F — May 21, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
I agree that net neutrality is a poorly conceived idea, but I think it’s important to look for the silver lining. If the NN crowd wins, we might be able to exploit this concept of “neutrality” to help “improve” our lives even more.
Microsoft is pro-NN? Then I suggest a Software Neutrality Policy. Instead of offering 6 versions of Windows Vista (the new OS due out in January ‘07), I suggest that we impose goverment regulations forcing Microsoft to provide the most robust and feature-filled version to everyone! And while we’re at it, I think we should regulate how much they charge for that version, because some of the people I know might have trouble paying for their expensive software.
Wholefoods has some great looking produce and meat, but they charge more than my local Superstore. Maybe we should institute Food Neutrality, forcing high-end markets with premium products to sell their food for the same price as the bargain basement bulk distributors. Who cares about quality anyway?
These ideas wouldn’t negatively affect the market, would they?
Help me out with this… I bet if we put our mind to it, we can come up with other ways to support universal neutrality. And Moby is pro-environment, so I’m pretty sure we can get him to come out in favor of our Food Neutrality Program!
Comment by watcher — May 22, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
What does it tell you that big technology companies are now coming out against net neutrality??? This type of regulation is not only…not needed, the companies it is intended to help…do NOT want it. Give it a rest Google.
Comment by Net Chick — May 22, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
Great post and great title, especially bringing up the point of “nationalization”. This is a sticky word that the left does not use for obvious reasons, but that is essentially what NN is. The government should let Chuck Norris stick to problems that ACTUALLY exist, since we all know that when Chuck Norris jumps in water he doesn’t get wet, the water gets Chuck Norrised.
Comment by lemon_lyman — May 23, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
I always love to see any article that promotes the free market. Somehow it has fallen out of favor and that makes me sad. Well put, net neutrality is a silly issue that could spell a lot of trouble if it goes too far (I too would suggest that Chuck Norris and NOT the government solve this one).
Comment by Stevens33 — May 24, 2006 @ 9:10 am
If anyone could get rid of all this net neutrality talk it would be Mr. Norris. Seriously, we don’t know what will happen if the internet coninues to run the way it has been for 25 years. However, we do know that having the government monitor the internet, it will cost us money and many new services that would of existed if the government just left the internet alone.
Comment by MRT — May 24, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
[...] Since my academic allies are few and far between (every techno law professor is apparently pro-net nationalization), I’d like to point out that our good ‘ol friend Bram Cohen of BitTorrent fame has thrown down the gauntlet on the issue. And surprisingly he grasps the economics of scarcity. One down, 300 million more to go. « World of Warcraft on Campus [...]
Pingback by Doctor Recommended » File-sharers against net neutrality — May 27, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
[...] Net neutrality needs a swift round-house kick from Chuck Norris « Misapplied methodology of the day: genetics style [...]
Pingback by Doctor Recommended » Bounces off of me and sticks to you — May 29, 2006 @ 2:19 pm