Phony "Conservatism" and Internet Neutrality

It is time to call out the Republicans, elected and unelected, for their rabid anti-net-neutrality rhetoric. They cast themselves as small-govenment conservatives, but really they are pro-big-business monopolists. They love small-government when it keeping it small limits consumer choice and creates artificial scarcity so the big businesses that pay their bills can become even more profitable without improving their services.

Mitch McConnell's blast: "The Obama administration, which has already nationalized health care, the auto industry, insurance companies, banks, and student loans, will move forward with what could be the first step in controlling how Americans use the Internet by establishing federal regulations on its use….The Internet is an invaluable resource. It should be left alone. As Americans become more aware of what’s happening here, I suspect many will be alarmed, as I am, at the government’s intrusion. They’ll wonder, as many already do, if this is a Trojan horse for further meddling by the government."

Hogwash, or worse. Net neutrality is about your right to connect to the Internet and use it the way you want to use it. Anyone who thinks the government does not have a role in creating a level playing field for citizens, consumers, and business entrepreneurs should have to answer the question: Would you defend the right of Verizon to provide phone service only to white people, or only to Democrats? After all, Verizon owns the wires, so wasn't it a government takeover of communications back then when access rules were put in place for telephony?

Net neutrality rules are pro-business. The only reason the big telcos and their congressional and talk-radio fellow travelers don't like the rules is because they create competition in what is rapidly becoming an oligarchical business space.

The head of a small ISP has a letter in the Globe this morning that states the case very well. With giant Internet providers in control, small providers, online start-ups, and anyone who publishes media online are at the mercy of these Goliaths that serve more than 200 million Internet users.

Railroads and the Internet

Susan Crawford, who blogs brilliantly about communications technology and law, today quotes J.P. Morgan brilliantly: "The American public seems to be unwilling to admit . . . that it has a choice between regulated legal agreements and unregulated extralegal agreements.  We should have cast away more than 50 years ago the impossible doctrine of protection of the public by railway competition." Amen. All the blathering about the government interfering in private enterprise by passing neutrality rules misses the fact that there is virtually no competition in Internet services in the US. "Subscribers to high-speed Internet access are choosing their local cable monopoly 90% of the time these days," Crawford continues. "Where Comcast is doing business, Comcast is or soon will be consumers’ only choice for high-speed Internet access." 


An unregulated monopoly will inevitably raise prices and limit services to increase profits. We have seen it before, but the flamethrowers on the right such as Michelle Malkin see any regulation of these Internet monopolists as "bureaucrats … increasing their control over your lives exponentially." Of course, I imagine  Malkin would also have stood shoulder to shoulder with the railroad monopolists, and the telephone and telegraph monopolists too.

Déja vu all over again

"Other groups warned that the rules would smooth the way for fast and slow lanes on the Internet. … Before the F.C.C. meeting even began on Tuesday, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said in a statement that the Internet 'should be left alone,' and that his colleagues would 'push back against new rules and regulations' next year." -- New York Times story  of December 22, 2010 on the FCC neutrality rules


"A few years ago a man started a news bureau in Cincinnati. A correspondent in New York filed the market reports each morning and the Cincinnati gentleman sold the information to customers. The Western Union asked him to sell out to them and he refused; thereupon his messages were taken away from the "through" wire and sent by a "way" wire. The difference in time was an hour, and the man was ruined. What were the relations of the Western Union to the people of the country in their social and political interests? The Western Union was controlled by three or four gentlemen in New York. It controlled the market prices, all the political and general news sent over its wires--every single important personal communication sent in the country. This company was controlled by no law except the interests of its owners. No State could pass a law which should have any effect on this corporation. Was there any other like power in the world? … How is it with the press? The Western Union Telegraph Company and the Associated Press made a close corporation. … Some time ago two papers in San Francisco discussed the postal telegraph. The rates to those papers were increased. One paper died in consequence and the other ceased to discuss the matter. … This was the power which this corporation held." -- Testimony before a congressional committee about the telegraph monopoly by Gardiner Hubbard, as reported by the New York Times, February 8, 1883


Internet service is not a national monopoly yet, but it is heading toward being a regional monopoly. Most people now get their Internet service from their Cable TV provider, and most regions are now served by only one Cable TV service. Speak up if you believe that a service like Skype, which singlehandedly has undercut the hugely profitable international telephone business, could again come into existence with no regulation and monopoly Internet service provision.

Net Neutrality at Last?

It is a fundamental principle of Internet libertarianism that carriers should not discriminate in how they treat packets based on the content of those packets. This "net neutrality" principle is easier to describe than to formalize, however.
In the US we have had what might be called telegraph neutrality and telephone neutrality rules. There have been laws preventing the telephone company from, for example, dropping calls from the DNC headquarters but not the RNC headquarters. It's an old story, and the whining about a "government takeover of the Internet" is just nonsense. (See p. 314 of Blown to Bits for more on this.)
Today the FCC passed some neutrality rules, after a long delay. It's not everything that everyone could have wanted, and Public Knowledge has already sent me an email grieving the loss of an opportunity. I'm not so disappointed. In fact, I am mainly worried that even these rules will be challenged in court, by telcos and cable companies who will insist that they own the damned wires and should be allowed to decide what goes through them. The real problem is that it will be hard to get the new Congress to give the FCC the authority it needs to make rules like these. And that will in the long run be bad for new businesses, while good for the existing near-monopoly players in the communications world.