June 12, 2006
Net Neutrality
I haven’t posted much on the whole Net Neutrality debate. As most of you know, I take a very critical look at anything that will expand government’s regulatory powers, especially into an area like the internet. Even if Net Neutrality will be ineffective and a miniscule bit of regulation, I know what happens when you let the camel’s nose in the tent!
I’ve stayed out of the debate, though, because it’s really rather confusing. And given that I’m a lot more internet-savvy than the average American, something that confuses me this much is indecipherable to others. What I didn’t understand was the hysteria generated by the pro-regulation crowd, to regulate something that seemed to be functioning well, and the lack of substance in their website. They do very little to tell you what their regulations are, or how they’ll work, yet you’re supposed to believe they solve a problem that doesn’t even exist. That’s not a red flag, that’s a truckload of red flags.
But I was struck by something. I checked out the Net Neutrality Scare Ticker, where there’s been a running tabulation of how long it’s been since the Net Neutrality movement began, without the internet implosion its supporters have predicted (it’s already been 3 1/2 years). They linked to this story talking about Microsoft joining the movement, and then this story (PDF), talking about Microsoft’s exit from the Net Neutrality movement a year after it began:
It all started about a year ago when a fuzzy group named the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators (CBUI) was formed. Amazon.com, Disney, eBay, Yahoo! and many Internet and technology associations threw their lot in with Microsoft to fight for the right of free passage online, otherwise known as network neutrality.
The CBUI argues that the federal government should regulate the broadband industry, effectively creating rules that would prohibit broadband providers from forming content and service partnerships that, theoretically, would harm users and competitors.
There’s one fact I have always been able to count on: when companies are lobbying for their own industry to be regulated, they’re doing so for their own sake, not the consumer. I think in this case, it may be a fight between them and the telcos, rather than them and their own competitors, but you can be sure it’s for their sake, not ours. Companies don’t spend millions of dollars on lobbyists to protect consumers, they do it to protect themselves.
3 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And the same can’t be said for Verizon, AT&T, BellSouth and Comcast — all of whom are already government-chartered monopolists? These state-created and state-perpetuated entities are somehow suddenly more dedicated to laissez-faire than Microsoft, eBay, Google and Yahoo?
Preposterous.
Kip,
Believe me, I’m not saying the telcos aren’t fighting this regulation for their own benefit.
In the absence of a documented problem, though, I err on the side of non-regulation.
Brad –
I think one thing you might be overlooking is the de facto monopolies granted to both telcos and cable companies in most parts of the country. In my lil’ niche of California, the only two options for high speed internet are Verizon DSL and Comcast Cable. In both cases, Comcast especially, the ISPs want to treat the performance of those sites who don’t pay up differently than those who do. If there were a market alternative that said “hey, we don’t do that”, I and many others would switch over, and the loss of business would rather quickly cause the whole issue to become an academic point.
What am I saying? While I don’t believe that “Net Neutrality” rules are the answer, I do think there is a regulatory answer to it, *undoing* the regulations that prevent market forces from working in broadband.