Weekend Question 3: When Will We Understand That Net Neutrality is Really Net Regulation?
I think Pat Cleary at RedState has the language down right on this issue:
….. “Net neutrality” = “net regulation.” If you want to regulate the net, you’ll love net neutrality. Net regulation will require a one-size/one price fits all approach to the net. Today, you can spend more to get a better car, house, iPod, whatever. Even the US Postal Service allows you to spend more to send a letter or a package faster. So why is it bad for companies to be able to charge more for faster and more complex Internet service? If you don’t want that, you’d pay less. Makes sense, no? Remember the market?
We wrote about this a while back. Someone sent us an article comparing this debate to the Post Office, noting the different rates for mailing a post card vs. a bicycle. Under net regulation, the government would require that you pay the same for both. Guess what happens to the price of mailing a post card?
Another point made by one of the attendees at yesterday’s session, cutting through the clutter of what net regulation meant was this: “Who do you trust to manage the development of the Internet — the private sector or the US Government?” Only one answer to that one.
After all controversy last fall that centered around keeping the UN and the EU away from the Internet, I’ll be dipped if I’m going to let the heavy hand of US government regulation intervene without justification.
And again, if there IS justification, the FCC and DOJ will have to have the nerve to address it. I don’t have any reason to believe they wouldn’t.
This is a basic liberal-conservative divide, and the question is, “Who do you DIS-trust the least?”:
- Government.
- BizzyBlog Wall of Shame members Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!
- The Telcos and Cablecos.
By default, my level of DIS-trust is lowest with the Telcos and Cablecos.
Saturday’s OpinionJournal.com reinforces: “Google and Moveon.org say they want to help you. Look out.”
_________________________
UPDATE: Dave at NixGuy has more on the “Who do you trust (or distrust the least)?” demarcation.
I’m moderately confused by your comments regarding who I trust the least. You say you trust the Telcos and Cablecos the least, but these companies are the main pushers against “net neutrality”.
To my understanding, “network neutrality” essentially prevents the “pipeline owners” (comcast, at&t, etc.) from discriminating in how they provide access to their bandwidth. Thus, comcast, for example, could not say to you, Terry Blumer, as a content provider, that you have to pay us $X per month or we won’t give our subscribers access to your webpage, or at least drastically slow down access to your page.
Essentially, do you trust the telcos the least; or, are you referring to people pushing network neutrality that trust the telcos the least?
Comment by David Lee — June 25, 2006 @ 11:16 am
Tom, I would like to see you and/or Dave frame this debate by articulating what net neutrality is, what it is meant to protect, the ramifications of an “unneutral” net, and the impact to the bottom lines of the telcos vs. content/service providers. No clippings from the National Review or the WSJ. In your own words, what does all of this mean?
Comment by Kevin Irwin — June 25, 2006 @ 11:52 am
#1 and #2, I DIStrust the telcos the least, and corrected the text to reflect that. My bad.
#2, As to the ramifications of an un-neutral net, etc. I have said for some time that I’m relying on subject-matter experts rather than trying to BE the expert.
My default position on many matters, esp relating to biz and commerce, is to avoid regulation until there is clear and convincing evidence that it is needed. I haven’t seen the subject-matter experts make a good case that regs are needed (beyond what FCC has already said that I noted in another post), and I fear what Congress, the govt., misguided regulators, misguided cabinet secretaries or dept. heads, or even a different administration regardless of party starting in 2009 will do with newly-minted regulatory authority.
If “neutrality” had been framed as “regulation” from the beginning, I would have had a hands-off position from the beginning, and given what FCC already has in place, I’m feeling that I was a bit deceived in the beginning.
Comment by TBlumer — June 25, 2006 @ 2:45 pm