The Net Neutrality Campaign

I thought I might write about this, but Robert Tracinski has saved me the trouble.

Mozilla and a bunch of other internet-dependent companies like Netflix and Amazon have been campaigning to get the FCC to keep the "net neutrality" regulations implemented under Obama, warning that without it big companies may restrict "free speech" on the internet. (This from the company that burned Brendan Eich at the stake for having the "wrong" views on marriage.)

Wikipedia explains the basic claim of these companies:

Proponents of net neutrality, in particular those in favor of reclassification of broadband to "common carrier", have many concerns about the potential for discriminatory service on the part of providers such as Comcast. Common-carriage principles require network operators to serve the public regardless of geographical location, district income levels, or usage. Telecommunications companies are required to provide services, such as phone access, to all consumers on the premise that it is a necessity that should be available to all people equally. If the FCC's ability to regulate this aspect is removed, providers could cease to offer services to low income neighborhoods or rural environments. Those in favor of net neutrality often cite that the internet is now an educational necessity, and as such should not be doled out at the discrimination of private companies, whose profit-oriented models cause a conflict of interest.

Tracinski explains what he believes is the real conflict over "net neutrality":

... The Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to turn Internet service providers into regulated utilities ... was never about stopping them from controlling content. It’s actually about money. It’s about who pays for all of that bandwidth we’re using. To be more specific, it’s about trying to make certain unpopular companies (like Comcast) pay for it, so that other, more popular companies (like Netflix) don’t have to.

The signature case cited as the reason we need net neutrality was the accusation that several big service providers were slowing down people’s Netflix downloads. And you don’t mess with the Netflix download speeds of this nation’s cultural elite.

But if they did this, the ISPs didn’t do it to show their disapproval of “House of Cards.” The real issue was a dispute between Netflix’s service provider, Cogent, and bigger ISPs like Comcast and Verizon, whom Cogent accused of “refus[ing] to upgrade the equipment that handles ISP traffic across the country.” Translation: everyone suddenly wanting to download all their television viewing off the Internet means the ISPs need to spend a lot of money on upgrades, and the big ISPs were asking Cogent and Netflix to foot part of the bill. This is a dispute over who should bear the cost of the Web’s considerable infrastructure, and net neutrality was the government coming in to put a thumb on the scales and dictate the winners and losers.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Remember our discussion about the cost of hearing aids? This is how you get hearing aids at $2300 each.

The beauty of most things electronic is that the government has so far had no excuse to regulate most of them. As a result, costs for things like memory have dropped like a stone, even while the capabilities of objects made using that memory have skyrocketed.

Contrast this with drugs, which are heavily regulated (with good reason) by the FDA. The cost of drugs only goes higher. Factor in political manipulation, such as HIV drugs, and you wind up with an agency that decides we are not going to issue patents on HIV Drugs (the United States Patent and Trademark Office) AND an FDA that decides to stop approving new protease inhibitors because we already have enough of them. The FDA wants authority over devices outside the human body and analytical tests.

The lesson is, when the government gets involved in a market, costs go up and innovation goes down.

Valerie

Cassandra said...

Common-carriage principles require network operators to serve the public regardless of geographical location, district income levels, or usage. Telecommunications companies are required to provide services, such as phone access, to all consumers on the premise that it is a necessity that should be available to all people equally.

From each, according to their ability. To each, according to his need? Or, as Joe Biden likes to say, "Health Care is for all."

Eric Blair said...

Well, all that grew out of the 19th century railroads and all the nice things that they did.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Ymar Sakar said...

They might be able to circumvent some of these issues with 5g. But cancer and other pyschological control problems will crop up too.