Defending the Internet from Rascals and FCC Chairmen

Katherine Mangu-Ward | September 24, 2009

At his coming out speech this week, the new head of the Federal Communications Commission appointed himself top cop on the Internet (as chronicled by Reason's own Peter Suderman). By threatening to apply the I know it when I see it standard for discriminatory violations of "open access" to the Internet, chairman Julius Genachowski follows in the footsteps of many regulators before him. But, as the University of Chicago's Richard Epstein writes in a tidy and prescient section from his new book from folks at the Free State Foundation, the plan to defend and strengthen markets via discrete bureaucratic meddling is nearly always doomed to fail:

A similar pattern is at work in the modern debates over net neutrality. The defense of that position starts out as a plea to end discrimination. Yet there is little evidence that the new dose of regulation will produce any gains in the short run. In the long run, we can expect a repetition of the sorry performance of the FCC (or, for that matter, Congress) with respect to broadcast rights to work its way through the law of net neutrality. The sad truth is that the parties who seek to develop sophisticated and sensible schemes for state control quickly lose control over the administrative process to persons whose ambitions for state control are not bound by any fine-grained rationale. The dangers for this predictable drift usually suffice to err on the side of caution. Stated otherwise, the expected rate of depreciation of sound public norms that rely on administrative discretion is high. There are too many pressure points to keep the rascals at bay. So the recommendation here is to follow classical liberal principles that treat all state intervention as a mistake until it is shown to be a good. More practically, and much to the point of the current public policy debate: Keep private control over broadband pipes by abandoning the siren call for net neutrality.

Extra points for use of the word "rascals" in a discussion of the dull, dull (yet important!) topic of net neutrality.

More net neutrality here. More rascals here.

Comments

Peter Suderman|9.24.09 @ 11:37AM|#

Dull? Who you callin' dull? Net neutrality is totally enthralling!

MNG|9.24.09 @ 11:37AM|#

This net neutrality thing is a perfect issue for demonstrating the weakness of abstract libertarian thought. Everyone likes the internet the way it is, providers are making money off of it the way it is. But this would allow changes that will likely screw things up just to make a few more bucks for the providers in the name of their liberty...And, the actual net amount of people's choices will diminish.

|9.24.09 @ 11:59AM|#

Net Neutrality came from fauxtarian geeks. They pretend to be libertarian, but they're really socialists underneath. Net neutrality is nothing less than the forced redistribution of bandwidth and equality of packets.

Barney Rubble|9.24.09 @ 12:02PM|#

Mr. Epstein is spot on.

MNG, however, has wandered off again. Why would libertarians support government enforcement of net neutrality? And who has on this site?

Disgruntled Employee|9.24.09 @ 12:08PM|#

But will they keep gmail from going down?

MNG|9.24.09 @ 12:12PM|#

"Why would libertarians support government enforcement of net neutrality"

I dunno, because the alternative will mean less choices available to less people?

We can all access different websites at basically the same speed now, under this as I understand it certain sites will be slower and less consumer friendly for certain consumers unless you pay certain fees. This will create a tiered system of access and result in less people having less meaningful choices on the internet.

|9.24.09 @ 12:18PM|#

MNG, the internet is not a right, nor is internet speed. If it's tiered, how is that different than everything else? You should subsidize a Porsche for me because I can only afford a Honda. Seriously, WTF?

|9.24.09 @ 12:25PM|#

Working in a "Wascawwy Wabbit" wefewence makes anything more interesting.

|9.24.09 @ 12:29PM|#

This will create a tiered system of access and result in less people having less meaningful choices on the internet.

Bad for internets; good for machinists and steel workers.

|9.24.09 @ 12:30PM|#

MNG, the internet is not a right, nor is internet speed.

Didn't you get the memo, *everything* is a right now, except for some titties with your coffee in the NW.

|9.24.09 @ 12:36PM|#

This net neutrality thing is a perfect issue for demonstrating the weakness of abstract libertarian thought.

How so?

But this would allow changes that will likely screw things up just to make a few more bucks for the providers in the name of their liberty...And, the actual net amount of people's choices will diminish.

OK, the ability to profit in an relatively unregulated market is definitely libertarianish, so no "weakness" there.

How about the alleged diminution of actual net amount of people's choices? Why would that occur in a relatively unregulated market? Libertarians can point to a long and sorry history of regulated markets presenting fewer actual choices to people than unregulated markets, for reasons pointed out be Epstein.

|9.24.09 @ 12:39PM|#

It is an interesting phenomenon how actual rights are taken from us and imaginary rights are created at the whims of stupid people.

|9.24.09 @ 12:52PM|#

MNG,

We can all access different websites at basically the same speed now...

That is just non-sense on its face. Web access "speeds" are themselves tiered. There is no such thing as net neutrality, there never has been and never will be. If the net were truly "neutral" (whatever the hell that is - and there are at least twenty different definitions of what a neutral net would look like) it would collapse.

This is a case of you not knowing what you are talking about.

|9.24.09 @ 12:54PM|#

Network Neutrality shouldn't be an issue. The only reason it's becoming one is due to cable / telephone duopoly. The telcos in particular are very good at lobbying legislative bodies to eliminate competition.

IMHO, this goes directly back to when the regulations where changed from requiring baby bells to allow unbundled access to their facilities to independent ISPs. This access was to facilities that were built using tax payer subsidies. That access is necessary to allow competitive telcos (CLEC, like Covad ) that deploy some of their own equipment to Bell central offices. It also allowed independent (non-telco) ISPs to resell DSL service.

The telcos are playing both sides of the field - demanding tax money to build out their networks and then demanding exclusive control over them with threats of not upgrading the facilities if they don't get it.

The bells are threating to use QoS to penalize those that don't pay them to as a method to gain other concessions. AT&T started talking about this right before they started buying Bell South. They agreed to give up their non-network neutral plans if they got a pass for buying Bell South.

These kinds of games ( like suing muni wifi providers ) are why the US is falling behind in Internet access.

Full Disclosure - I worked for an independent ISP for 6 years, tho I have not been in that industry for a few years.

|9.24.09 @ 12:54PM|#

MNG,

What is also bizarre but predictable about government discussion of net neutrality is that it is dealing with pipes that are at least a decade old, while fourth through seventh pipes are coming online as we have this discussion.

roystgnr|9.24.09 @ 12:58PM|#

No, the net itself is a perfect issue for demonstrating the weakness of abstract libertarian thought:

The most inflexibly principled libertarians disapprove of government land, eminent domain easements, etc, and it's practically impossible in such a world just to string a cable from point A to point Z, because there's always some property owner in points B through Y who thinks he can make a fortune by charging much more than the others to let you cross.

Alternatively, the most hypocritical "libertarians" think it's just fine for local governments to grant land and monopolies for a couple companies to string connections to your home, but it's OMG FORCED REDISTRIBUTION if you want to prevent the privileged members of a government-granted oligopoly from fraudulently exploiting their customers' lack of choices by selling crippled access while advertising unlimited access.

Nick42|9.24.09 @ 12:59PM|#

Stewart,

The issue about network neutrality is that consumer ISPs are proposing slowing down websites ( or services ) that don't pay them a shakedown fee for non-degraded access to their customers. As it is now both the sender and the requester pay their own internet access.

When I first heard about this I thought it would be non-starter. I mean do you really think ISP customers would be ok with their ISP making it take longer to get to Google if Google doesn't give them kickbacks?

However, now that most consumers only have one or two options ( some only one ) for broadband access it's a lot easier for consumer ISPs to use their duopoly power to extract money they really shouldn't be entitled to.

( Also a disambiguation note - I am the Nick that ranted about telcos at 12:54, I changed my nick b/c I realized there was an earlier poster using it.)

|9.24.09 @ 1:01PM|#

If internet providers cannot limit speed to particular users they should also not be allowed to limit content. If passed, any net neutrality law should outlaw regulation/restriction of content. No more banned URL's. Stormfront, chimpout, n-----mania, and any other sites a democratic majority of people would define as "hate" sites should no longer have their addresses banned by a private party such as AOL. This goes double for thepiratebay and mininova which though not hate sites do facilitate breaking actual laws, thank god. :)

Not that I want "net neutrality", but if they are going to put their hands in the private sector cookie jar, they should do it in a way that promotes "fairness" fairly.

(resist the temptation to check out all the hate sites. I didn't when I first read about them, but you should. While not checking them out for their comedic value, you should also inform me if I've missed any good ones. 'was at a really good "hate whitey" site recently, but I forgot to bookmark it. Yes, I'm easily amused...)

|9.24.09 @ 1:02PM|#

Maybe I'm missing something, but nothing that mng wrote made any sense.

Net neutrality is allegedly to keep companies from throttling certain types of internet traffic, such as torrents. Which taken simply sounds like a good thing, however this is the government we're referring to here. They meddle.

"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome." - River Tam

|9.24.09 @ 1:03PM|#

bigbigslacker,

Net neutrality is a good way to have the government eventually trying to determine what is appropriate for web viewing.

|9.24.09 @ 1:04PM|#

aelhues,

What net neutrality is depends on who you are talking to. It can refer to content control, tiered pricing, or any number of other things.

|9.24.09 @ 1:27PM|#

Seward, yeah, I know. I read a few tech blogs, and for the most part they think you're satan if you don't support net neutrality legislation. The problem is I doubt a single one of them have read the bill. They don't understand the implications of letting the government in, or how these types of things start out sounding helpful, and over the years become more and more draconian.

|9.24.09 @ 1:55PM|#

It's always interesting to see which companies line up on which side of the fence on net neutrality.

ISPs are on the "No" side and content and service providers are on the "Yes" side. Basically, the content providers want the ISPs to spend billions on rolling out infrastructure, but have *zero* say in how those networks are used.

Essentially, the net neutraliterions want the state to subsidize their business model.

My own personal preference is for neutrality, but then again, I also don't want my neighbor to paint his house a color I hate. In neither case should I get a say in how someone else's property is used.

All the FCC has succeeded in doing is screw up Internet access with their franchise rules, which has created local carrier monopolies/duopolies. Sorry, but no, you don't get another chance to fix what you screwed up in the fist place with even more meddling.

Kill the FCC. Problem solved.

|9.24.09 @ 2:44PM|#

( Also a disambiguation note - I am the Nick that ranted about telcos at 12:54, I changed my nick b/c I realized there was an earlier poster using it.)

Thanks. Too much more of this and I'll have to change my handle to Mr. Peanut.

Hottie16|9.24.09 @ 4:09PM|#

Do you think this will effect my chat-rooms?!?

Hope not!

The Libertarian Guy|9.25.09 @ 10:12AM|#

"Net neutrality is a good way to have the government eventually trying to determine what is appropriate for web viewing."

Exactly.