The recent ruling by a federal government court that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s bid to enforce a “net-neutrality” Internet service policy, was described thusly by Joelle Tessler of the Associated Press:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation’s largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC’s authority to impose such ‘network neutrality’ obligations on broadband providers.
Supporters of network neutrality, including the FCC chairman, have argued that the policy is necessary to prevent broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain Web sites and online services, such as Internet phone programs or software that runs in a Web browser. Advocates contend there is precedent: Nondiscrimination rules have traditionally applied to so-called ‘common carrier’ networks that serve the public, from roads and highways to electrical grids and telephone lines.
But broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. argue that after spending billions of dollars on their networks, they should be able to sell premium services and manage their systems to prevent certain applications from hogging capacity.
Damned straight. The networks rightfully belong to these companies, and not the government. And guess what? In a free market, if one company does decide to impose the kind of restrictions aforementioned, a competitor will provide Internet service that does not, and at a reasonable price based on unfettered market values. Indeed, prices would further plummet in an absence of ever-inflating government sanctioned fiat currency, taxation, other regulations and red tape that artificially inflate costs, and all of the other arrogant and wasteful measures imposed on nearly all businesses at gunpoint via the oppression of government. Does anyone really need a government court ruling to establish that?
And does anyone really think that the government’s motivation for using the FCC in this instance as its enforcement arm against Internet service providers (ISPs) is pure and noble; that their only desire is to improve the lot of consumers? Let’s have a little bit of a further look at that AP article:
Tuesday’s unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel was a setback for the FCC because it questioned the agency’s authority to regulate broadband. That could cause problems beyond the FCC’s effort to adopt official net neutrality regulations. It also has serious implications for the ambitious national broadband-expansion plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs the authority to regulate broadband so that it can push ahead with some of the plan’s key recommendations. Among other things, the FCC proposes to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.
Oh, do say! Looks like another Obama welfare scheme at public expense that the Lefties didn’t want to see go down the tubes. But notice also how – in this case the FCC – government once again “needs the authority to regulate” in the name of saving the world from a bunch of greedy capitalist pigs. After all, it’s the “big corporations” who wish to exploit us all with heavy-handed tactics, and ultimately censor and shut down free speech on the Internet. Personally, a company that seeks my business on a voluntary basis by vying with competitors in providing the best service at the lowest realistic price will always trump an institution that seeks to limit choice and commandeer monopolism literally at gunpoint – so that it can impose censorship, or shut down the entire network, or do whatever it wishes with total unaccountability while financing it all with extorted loot.
It comes down to a simple principle; the very principle free market anarchism is based on: Either you believe that the foundation of all human relationships is and should be violence, or you don’t. The choice is yours (this one, anyway). You decide.
Translations for this article:
- Portuguese, Neutralidade da internet? O governo nunca é neutro.
Alex, while I agree with your rational and principles, I think there’s an element of a puppet show here. These are the same telecoms who happily work with the Feds and actively release private information and assist in domestic spying programs. Regrettably I’m not as read on this subject as I should be, but I’d like to know how much the government has assisted in the development of their networks, either through communications taxes funneled for that specifically or through low interest loans for infrastructure development or direct appropriations.
Comcast does not operate in a free market. Cable companies are awarded franchises which give them a monopoly (except in some areas where Verizon’s FiOS is “allowed” to operate). So when you say: “In a free market, if one company does decide to impose the kind of restrictions aforementioned, a competitor will provide Internet service that does not, and at a reasonable price based on unfettered market values.” you are describing a world that does not exist for Comcast.
Unless the Courts also dismantle the monopoly that Comcast (and other cable cos) have in their operating areas, then this ruling sentences subscribers to high prices and lack of choice.
To the first two commenters, I'm going to go all Carson here and suggest the possibility of very local ISPs. Think: as long as someone can get a OC-* line to his house and there are no regulations on him putting up a small antenna on his house, there is pretty much *nothing*, thanks to wireless networking, stopping him from setting up his own ISP for people very nearby to him. I'll acknowledge that net neutrality will screw the big ISPs, and you're seriously going to need a fucking raft to ride the river I'm crying for the ISPs that feed on government privilege. The opposite becomes true, however, from the moment that the big ISPs start to screw you. Whatever way the net neutrality thing goes, the consumer, and decentralised freedom, will be the winner. Consider these scenarios:
a) Net neutrality regulations are put in place. Big ISPs go bust because they can't afford the costs of not throttling services like BitTorrent (and yes, there are good reasons to filter it), or they pump up the cost of their services. People gravitate towards the very local ISPs.
b) Net neutrality regulations are not put in place. ISPs decide to screw the consumer (and if you're right about these local monopolies in the US, as I suspect you are, this is almost inevitable). People gravitate towards these local ISPs.
I'd prefer b) (I don't like the idea that government exists, let alone that they should interfere with the internet), but either way, decentralism and freedom win.
Fuck yeah, technology!
Lissismore has a valid point that many of these telecom companies are recipients of politically awarded monopoly franchises. At the same time, though, that’s still a false rationale for adding yet another layer of market distorting government regulation — because that will add even more unintended consequences and the process will keep repeating ad infinitum until civilization drowns in red tape.
Net neutrality regulation was actively sought after and lobbied for. The same resources (theoretically) could have been spent on instead agitating for the junking of monopoly franchises across the board — but it wasn’t. I believe that goes to show that consumer protection has never been the principal goal of backers of the effort.
c) Net neutrality regulations are put in place. Big ISPs go bust because they can’t afford the costs of not throttling services like BitTorrent. ISPs lobby for federal subsidies. At Congressional hearings, senators warn of the Internet’s impending death. The federal government imposes consumer price caps for Cable and DSL service, then subsidizes major ISPs to cover their revenue losses. Local and ad-hoc ISPs fold, unable to compete with their larger, subsidized cousins. Network congestion increases steadily as investment in new broadband technology collapses.
Opinion-makers everywhere cite the entire incident as yet another instance of “market failure”.
Great comment, Brad. You are right. The corporations are not fully free market nor is the broadband market–but this is because of state intervention in the first place. To lobby the state to regulate an industry that is quasi-monopolized because of the state’s actions is asinine. The state is the problem, not the solution.
As for the suggestion for Carsonian-style “local” ISPs–size is not the problem. Whatever size would exist on a truly free market is fine. We have no apriori way of knowing that the current telcos are too big or bigger than what we’d see on a free market.
I touched on these issues in Net Neutrality Developments and a comment to Pearlstein: Beware the courts on government regulation.
Some people here are conflating Comcast's monopoly in providing cable TV with a monopoly on internet service, which is incorrect. The two have nothing to do with each other, other than that Comcast provides both TV and internet over the same physical infrastructure. Comcast is very much in competition with other internet access providers.
"When the state confers a special privilege on an occupation, a business firm, or an industry, and then sets regulatory limits on the use of that privilege, the regulation is not a new intrusion of statism into a free market. It is, rather, the state’s limitation and qualification of its own underlying statism. The secondary regulation is not a net increase, but a net reduction in statism.
On the other hand, repeal of the secondary regulation, without an accompanying repeal of the primary privilege, would be a net increase in statism. Since the beneficiaries of privilege are a de facto branch of the state, the elimination of regulatory constraints on their abuse of privilege has the same practical effect as repealing a constitutional restriction on the state’s exercise of its own powers."
Internet providers' monopoly is the shackle, net neutrality is the crutch. Therefore,advocacy for net neutrality is actually a net decrease in statism; otherwise, more statism from the business-government partnerhsip.
"The secondary regulation is not a net increase, but a net reduction in statism."
Strangely, I had never noticed that before (it's from Carson at http://c4ss.org/content/15318). It's one of those rare instances of Carson being about as completely wrong as it's humanly possible to be.
Secondary interventions are not "net reductions in statism." They are additional doses of statism undertaken for the purpose of keeping the primary interventions stable/sustainable. They are net increases in both intent and effect and at both the front entryway and the rear exit.
So, to you, Constitutional Amendments, evidently secondary legislations as they are, must also be " additional doses of statism undertaken for the purpose of keeping the primary interventions stable/sustainable. They are net increases in both intent and effect and at both the front entryway and the rear exit." Therefore, Constitutional Amendments, which actually tells the state not to oppress the citizens so harshly, are not needed.
Yeah right, the government rigged the market to grant Internet-providing cronies monopolistic privileges, while Internet-providing cronies censor the Internet on government's behalf. Phillip & Mary granted the Stationers' Guild the monopolistic rights to print books, as long as the Stationers' Guild censored materials critical of the regime. But "private-property-rights" Iconodules, claiming themselves to be "freedom-loving," defend the "property-rights" of censors in the "private sectors".
On the one hand, you don't seem to understand the term "secondary intervention."
On the other hand, yes, the purpose of constitutional amendments is to assist the state in continuing on its monopoly in power by putting the putative beneficiaries of those amendments back to sleep.
I"On the one hand, you don't seem to understand the term 'secondary intervention.'"
Proof by assertion. Fallacious and Meaningless.
"On the other hand, yes, the purpose of constitutional amendments is to assist the state in continuing on its monopoly in power by putting the putative beneficiaries of those amendments back to sleep."
Remove the shackle first, then the unshackled can walk without clutches. But remind the clutched shackled person that s/he is still shackled so that s/he will not uncritically accept that shackled.