Next Up for Nationalization: the Internet

National Review ^ | November 13, 2008 | Phil Kerpen

[dr_who]

Network neutrality means less technological innovation — and less freedom, too.

By Phil Kerpen

Following the nationalization of investment banks, Fannie and Freddie, consumer banks, and private insurance companies, taxpayers are likely asking: What’s left for the federal government to nationalize?

How about the Internet?

Network neutrality, or net neutrality, is the beneficent-sounding name for sweeping new government regulatory power that would prohibit Internet service providers from innovating in their own networks. This could lead to much less broadband investment by private companies, and could potentially force government subsidization, control, and outright nationalization of the Internet. The implications of this are chilling.

[dr_who]

One of the better arguments against network neutrality. Points out the goofy thinking by some of its proponents. And why just go after talk radio if you can get the FEC and FCC to decide who is exercising their right to free speech and who is just a hooligan no better than another hacker trying to launch a Denial of Service attack on someone else? Makes you wonder where the nations big, successful, newspapers are placing their bets.

[Fichori]

Last I checked, Moveon.org was a big proponent of net neutrality.

Its the Fairness Doctrine of the net, in disguise.

[Psycho_Bunny]

That article's assumptive and convoluted - reaching for bizarre extremes to make its point.

The most important argument the author fails to mention is that the internet reached the point it's at now by remaining almost entirely net-neutral.

[Dallas59]

If anyone can do it Obama can!

[jas3]

Consider that some of the largest players in the net now, like Verizon and Comcast essentially have government protected monopolies. They use the excessive rents they extort from their customers to the detriment of their internet competitors.

I’m not sure what “network neutrality” is until I see a piece of draft legislation. But I don’t believe for a second that poor Comcast can’t defend its network from “bandwidth hogs”. If Comcast wants to promise X Mbits up and Y Mbits down to its customers, then it shouldn’t be surprised when they use the services they have paid for.

Lastly, it “the internet” gets messed up by government, people will simply create new networks above, below, or along side it. There is nothing that prevents people from creating their own separate networks, and there’s good reason to have multiple networks rather than just a single data infrastructure in the United States.

Maybe in a few years, you’ll decide that the internet’s DNS system and potential for “clickjacking” abuse are simply far to risky for you to want to continue to use, and you’ll switch to the AfterNet or the BlahDiDahNet. Use of fiber optics in networks does not require that the network be “the internet”.

[buzzer]

The real problem is that without network neutrality big players in the market like verizon will blackmail smaller competitors. Network neutrality does not mean regulation of networks. It’s the opposite. Network neutrality means no regulation by anyone.

[pepperhead]

AT&T is on their way to becoming like Comcast.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Lastly, it “the internet” gets messed up by government, people will simply create new networks above, below, or along side it. There is nothing that prevents people from creating their own separate networks, and there’s good reason to have multiple networks rather than just a single data infrastructure in the United States."

Tor project

[nathanbedford]

I find the arguments against not to be persuasive

Apart from the people who promote this venture, what is wrong with it? As a goal, "neutrality" is laudable and in itself offers nothing to be against. It's proponents define it thus: "...a network-neutrality regime. In its strictest form, such a regime would require every bit that travels over a network to be treated the same way." So far, so good.

The author quotes the founders of the Internet as being opposed to mandates because they, "could" hamper innovation. But the author does not favor us with an explanation of why that should be so and does not quote Robert Kahn, the "father of the Internet," as to why the "could" should be thought of as " would" stifle innovation. Evidently, the "grandfather of the Internet", David Farber "has urged Congress not to enact net-neutrality mandates that would prevent significant improvements to the Internet." But the author does not tell us how Mr. Farber feels about that neutrality mandates which would not prevent significant improvements to the Internet. In other words, the reader is left with an argument that is not persuasive because of its vagueness and incompleteness.

The author moves on to quoting a proponent of net neutrality, a college professor and therefore admittedly suspect, who predicts that that neutrality will discourage private investment and therefore promote government investment. Again, the "why" is not explained.

Next, the other cites Google's "propagandist" who the author says calls for the nationalization of the Internet because it will make it, "essentially open to all." What is wrong with that?-not the nationalization part, the open access part? Does the author mean to leave it to us to infer from the very fact of nationalization that the government will impose invidious discriminations?

Again, the readers entitled to ask, what evidence is the author reduces support of his contention that government nationalization will lead to government censorship? Again, the author quotes a professor, this time a truly nutty one, who wants to censor opponents of global warming on the Internet. From this we are to infer that all free speech will be censored by the government.

The author concludes:

Supporters of network neutrality won’t admit to any of this. In fact, they’ll tell you the opposite — that network neutrality will preserve your freedoms. In an ironic twist, one of the scare tactics they use is the idea that phone and cable companies may start blocking access to political websites. Of course, this is exceedingly unlikely in a competitive marketplace where customers can take their business elsewhere. But it is very possible in a world of government monopoly.

How persuasive are these arguments going to be when directed to an electorate which has just overwhelmingly elected a proponent of government intervention and regulation of the economy? His Republican opponent, anyway, campaigned on the dangers of unbridled, unregulated capitalists running amok. Are the author' s arguments going to change the minds of voters who accepted pro-government intervention arguments from both candidates? Will they do so in the teeth of demands of private industry, i.e. Google, for regulation? What do we have besides the ad hominem and the provenance of the supporters of net neutrality?

I am not unaware of what we are up against in this administration. Long before the election I had repeatedly posted that America is unwittingly accepting the risk that it may be putting an ideological tyrant in the White House. Couple that with the coming assault on talk radio, on Joe The Plumber, the threats of the prosecutors in Ohio, hate crime legislation, and the disposition of the established media to approve all of this, and we have the real potential for tyranny.

I want to see more intellectual rigor and better and more persuasive arguments.

I would be embarrassed to send this article to my techno-geek friend who is a libertarian at heart but who voted against Republicans this time because of the Iraq war. He already thinks that the arguments about the provenance of Obama's citizenship and the ad hominem which I've directed against Obama's radical associations, are not only unpersuasive but bordering on the paranoid. I have tried to react to this article, line by line, the same way my friend would. We lost the last election this way. Let us do better next time.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Of course the leftists in congress want to sink their fascist teeth into the internet. They hate the fact that we have a vehicle for communication that they can’t control and tax.

[dajeeps]

The basic premise of net neutrality is that providers can’t block or prioritize traffic based on content, regardless of motivation. I think it came about from two different issues: 1) the monopolistic nature of broadband; 2) voice/video and data convergence issues within the industry.

From a provider’s view point, in order to provide converged purpose networks, rather than traditional data networks, it takes investment and they wanted to have a cost recovery model; like providing high bandwidth exclusives by prioritizing at a premium. Of course that comes at the cost of possibly drowning out Joe Blogger and Jane Forum provider.

In essence, net neutrality says we don’t want internet that is so highly commercialized that Joe Lunchbucket can only consume rather than participate on equal footing.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

If the incoming government was truly interested in a level-playing field on the Internet, the any law which fostered that would not be an issue. However, we know that the rats will use a well-intentioned regulation (”neutrality”) as the basis for further regulation (”equal access”, “fairness”, “non-hateful”, etc.) which is their true goal once the regulatory principle has been established.

[Mark319]

Well, not yet anyway.

Internet control is the next logical step after silencing conservative talk radio with the “Fairness Doctrine”...

[ikka]

The core idea behind net neutrality is that providers have to have an even playing field for any service, not just the ones they want there to be.

Large Telecoms like Level3, ATT, etc. are government regulated in their other businesses and also are always looking for ways to make more money from their fixed infrastructure.

If the govt gets its fangs into the Net, how long before FreeRepublic is blocked, or carved up into only being accessible under some sort of special circumstance, similar to how you can only get certain channels if you have a more expensive cable package?

[Desdemona]

The author quotes the founders of the Internet as being opposed to mandates because they, "could" hamper innovation. But the author does not favor us with an explanation of why that should be so and does not quote Robert Kahn, the "father of the Internet," as to why the "could" should be thought of as " would" stifle innovation. Evidently, the "grandfather of the Internet", David Farber "has urged Congress not to enact net-neutrality mandates that would prevent significant improvements to the Internet." But the author does not tell us how Mr. Farber feels about that neutrality mandates which would not prevent significant improvements to the Internet. In other words, the reader is left with an argument that is not persuasive because of its vagueness and incompleteness.

Part of the problem here is the inability of the techno people to articulate how innovation and invention work. I agree with the founders, but they are so wrapped up in the technology, they forgot to take a public speaking class. They are worried about regulations that say invention has to do this or that in this time frame using only this language and on and on. That's not the way a lot of these guys operate.

I would think that in this climate there is also a matter of funding for the R&D. Corporate dollars are not going to be invested in redundant technology or something that isn't going to sell. Regulating how innovation occurs is ridiculous and will stifle the creativity somewhere along the flowchart - the point of creativity, product design, funding, take your pick.

It also occurs to me that the non-corporate innovation can be controlled through the dangling of federal dollars before the programmers. That's a control. Venture capital, at the moment, is very hard to come by in this field.

Just some food for thought, because it's a slippery slope to communications tyranny if the feds start messing around with controlling the internet and any of it's offshoots.

[Cacique]

btt

[Texas Fossil]

I have always liked AT&T, but I think you are right. I recently had 2 e-mails frozen “for testing”, and came to the conclusion that someone at AT&T was the cause.

Frozen because of content, a Technorati search screen capture. Can you imagine.

Orwellian?

[nathanbedford]

In the ongoing maneuverings for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, I am looking for a man (term used generically for humans) who can distill into pithy language what is at stake for average citizens on questions like this. I don't give a damn, and I don't think the American public gives a damn, if the candidate has a winning smile or a nice haircut. I want someone who can make the case!

In this Internet business it seems to me that we are talking about liberty and competence. The obvious analogy is to the post office which is incompetent and which denies us the liberty of privatizing mail delivery. Federal Express on the other hand is quite competent and puts us at liberty because we don't like Federal Express we can have UPS.

It seems to me that we are making the same argument with respect to the fairness doctrine. The competence of talk radio is demonstrated by their ratings and advertising revenue. The liberty is demonstrated by the multitude of choices available to the listener. Hence, we conservatives have the argument of liberty and competence on our side.

I believe the American people are yearning for competence in government. On a companion thread, the author wonders if we will come out of the wilderness in four years or 40 years or, God forbid, never. We must find the arguments that will appeal to people. I am fully aware that Mike Dukakis failed utterly with a competence argument. But we are now entering a very grave recession, we have the history of the Bush administration punctuated by hurricane Katrina. We have the unending drumbeat that Bush is a moron ratified daily by the media. The nation as a whole believes that the Republican Party is incompetent.

The left will now abandon references to competence, believing they can swamp that consideration by appeals to self-interest. In times of recession or depression they might well be right. Save a man man from mortgage foreclosure and he has very little scruples about trading off abstract notions of confidence or liberty on the Internet or even on talk radio. Nevertheless, the argument must be made.

On an issue by issue basis we are almost doomed to lose. Handouts will always trump competence and liberty. The public must be brought to see that there is a overarching pattern afoot within the Democrat ranks which when seen as a whole constitutes one of the most breathtaking grabs after our liberty in American history.

Finally, the individual must be brought to see it will cost him dear. The price for not drilling in Anwar is paid at the pump. The price for declining to build coal plants appears in your electric bill. The price for the loss of liberty on the Internet will be compounded by the taxes you must pay to use it. The abstractions of liberty must be brought down, especially in this economic environment, to pocketbook issues and they must be presented so they will be seen to be one.

[GVnana]

University of Sunderland professor Alex Lockwood says nationalization of the Internet is one way to get a handle on the problem in his view, of scientists skeptical of global warming who use the Internet to disseminate their research. His reasoning shows how easily the rationale for regulation can creep from network structure to content control:

I would argue that climate disinformation online is a form of cultural and political malware every bit as threatening to our new media freedoms, used not to foster a forum for open politics but to create, in Nancy Fraser’s term, a “multiplicity of fragmented publics” that harms not only our democracy, but our planet.

Ready for a little European fascism, anyone?