Net Neutrality
Ξ August 10th, 2010 | → Comments Off | ∇ Politics, Technology |
A friend of mine recently commented on Net Neutrality (and specifically, the Verizon/Google collaboration). My thoughts on the matter are a bit long for a comment, so I thought I’d turn it into a full post.
Net Neutrality, at it’s most basic idea, is the idea that bits should be considered bits only – that bits shouldn’t be treated differently based on where they are from, where they are going, or what they are carrying. Now, any techie will tell you this is unreasonable – the very underlying technology that provides for the Internet violates this (Time To Live field in IP). And I’ve used quality of service (QoS) settings in my house to great effect, which would be verboten under such a regime. Ditto for network protection measures.
So it’s not about treating all bits the same. Fair enough, that was a simplification. The real fear regarding the issues of Net Neutrality is this: some people are worried about corporations cutting deals to lock out people from the Internet and it will become a gated community (usually with political connotations). Others are worried that the government will take control and turn the Internet into a political football and regulate away the dynamic nature of it. Depending on which you worry about more generally determines where you end up on the divide.
There are a couple of points I’d like to make here: First, we currently have de facto if not de jure Net Neutrality. No service provider I’ve had blocks me from going to the many sundry and controversial parts of the web. As such, arguments for Net Neutrality are based on a perceived threat, and not an actual one.
Second, the most likely means of Net Neutrality is through FCC oversight. In response to a point my friend made about with government oversight, at least “we can vote the bastards out”, the members of the FCC are appointed bureaucrats and not elected. In fact, I honestly couldn’t name any member of the FCC beyond Michael Powell, who (rather infamously) oversaw the FCC during the surge of decency complaints following Super Bowl XXXVIII. As such, the oversight of the FCC regarding the Internet would be controlled by people appointed to the position, and reflect the political winds of the time but insulated from voter retribution. Unless you believe your political ideology will rule from here on out, this should be a worry for you.
Third, consider the primary broadband provider in any given area – the cable provider. Sure, DSL exists, but it’s much narrower than cable. Cable is building on top of an infrastructure that allows it to provide TV and other services. This combined infrastructure gives it a much larger revenue stream than just broadband. And that revenue stream means that they are able to pursue the costs of meeting the regulatory requirements necessary to move into a given market.
Now, admittedly, my knowledge in the area of municipal telecom regulations is somewhat murky, but what I’ve read seems to backup my general belief that most corporate unseemliness is either enabled or caused by government regulation (and the manipulation thereof). For instance, a couple of years ago, the FCC forced a relaxation in the requirements for entry into the cable market. In ruling in favor of the FCC’s action, a US court noted, “For example, Verizon’s comments indicated that, of its 113 franchise negotiations pending as of March 2005, only ten resulted in franchise grants after one year.” Additionally, “[C]omments submitted by service provider Qwest indicated that it withdrew franchise applications in eight different regions due to economically burdensome build-out requirements.” (See here, pages 19 and 20).
Now, this situation has me a bit conflicted. On the one hand, as a big believer in federalism, I feel that it’s, as a general rule, proper to devolve authority to the lowest levels possible. But at the same time, when it’s the actions of the local community that make it too burdensome to enter into the market, I hardly feel it’s right to complain about the lack of competition.
These three points lead me to the conclusion that there is not a clear and present danger to the spirit of the Internet as it’s existed, that the granting to the government of additional oversight in the way the Internet is run brings with it new and unnecessary hazards, and that the best way to preserve de facto Net Neutrality is to further ease the regulatory and bureaucratic requirements on companies wishing to enter into the market.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
