Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
A couple of clicks below, Richard Epstein (along with co-counsel John Yoo, Esq.) give a wonderfully cogent argument against the FCC regulations known as "Net Neutrality."
An hour or so ago, the FCC passed those regulations, which (surprise!) arrogate to the federal government the right to regulate data-delivery prices over the web. In other words, the web -- which up to this morning was a vital, chaotic, energetic, fiercely competitive place -- has been neutered by an administration that has yet to meet an industry it doesn't want to humanely euthanize.
Two thoughts:
1. This really is an amazing example of federal government buttinsky-ism. (I believe that's the legal term...) It's pre-emptive regulation, attempting to head off a possible set of circumstances in which data carriers charge different amounts to different content providers, depending on the content, the owner, the deal, or, I guess, the race, creed, or religion of the makers. It'll make the internet space more competitive, say its proponents, which is total nonsense. The ISP business has become more competitive every single moment of the past ten years, and the idea that it somehow needs federal assistance to maintain that rate of innovation, disruption, and delivery speed is hard to swallow. Does anyone think that we'd have, oh, Netflix streaming movies or iTunes or YouTube if the federal government had begun regulation the internet ten years ago? Does anyone look to the federal government for guidance on how to develop, expand, and introduce high-tech services?
2. Regulation like this ultimately favors the status quo. As I say in the previous thread, this is rent control for data. And rent control never works. If you regulate the price of something -- rents in Manhattan; potatoes in Soviet Russia; milk in America's dairyland -- you get stagnation, shortages, inefficiency, and truly rotten service.
Here's all you need to know about the new regulations, from the WSJ:
Big phone and cable companies have expressed qualified support for the compromise, but they have said there was no real need for government regulation of web traffic.
Of course they support it, even though it regulates the prices they can charge. Big companies thrive under price regulation, because they know it smothers competition.
The web, as we know it, is dead.
- Comment (58)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Rob, can you give us the screenwriter's perspective on why the Writers Guild of America is opposed to the new regulations? That is, how do the new regulations specifically affect the ability of screenwriters to earn a living (in terms of revenue opportunities or other issues)?
Jun '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
I'm not a fan of having internet providers, nor the government for that matter, being able to control what I can and can't see on the web. Companies like Comcast are claiming shortages of bandwith created by pirates as a reason for rationing access. Other companies are delving into restricting access to the highest bidders. That will eventually force out all but the biggest content providers. Will it take the liberals buy up internet time before the conservatives get concerned? Prices for products will not go down if the only stores you can find on the net are those who can afford to buy up the access.
Government regulation and the "free market" in our aircraft industry have led to the dwindling of competition, the highest prices, the virtual death of innovation and our former customers going to Europe or South America or even Asia for their airplanes.
I trust the government to screw things up in a truly spectacular manner. And I trust American greed to screw up the rest. When you shear sheep you've got to leave enough of the sheep left for the wool to grow back.
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Oh, I can't wait to read this....
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
My bet is the courts, which already ruled that the FCC has no authority in this sphere, will overrule this decision. And if the courts do not do it, Congress can reverse it.
Aug '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
My guess would be that the Writers Guild recognizes that video will be delivered more and more via the Internet, and as such they wouldn't want ISPs to be prevented from placing a higher priority on video bandwidth.
May '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
I dunno, Mr Paul. Counting more on the defunding threat that has pushed back the EPA.
This is the Fairness Doctrine writ large.
Aug '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
From the WSJ article:
Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from "unreasonably discriminating" against rivals' Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks.
Or, if I might put it another way, the rules force Internet providers to provide Internet services to their own competitors, kind of like forcing Apple to sell Android phones.
Sep '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Robert E. Lee:
I trust the government to screw things up in a truly spectacular manner. And I trust American greed to screw up the rest. When you shear sheep you've got to leave enough of the sheep left for the wool to grow back. · Dec 21 at 12:20pm
I haven't fully read up on this new regulation, but Robert echos my instinct. Show my something, anything that the government has done successfully (except the military).
I hate the idea of price tiers for internet bandwidth, but this is largely just capitalism at work. If I use a little of a product, why should I pay the same as someone who uses more? Starbucks doesn't charge the same price for their different sizes of coffee - if I want a Venti, I have to pay more than a Tall. (This example comes to mind because - well - I'm sitting in a Starbucks.)
Dec '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
A breathtaking overreach by the FCC but unlikely to survive court/Congressional review.
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Here comes the future. Hold on to your wallets:
Ryan Singel at Wired Epicenter, reporting on an idea presented to mobile carriers to charge money for each service you use:
I know, I know -- just switch carriers if you don't like it! Whoops -- it's both AT&T and Verizon. Guess my iPhone just became an iPod Touch.
Edited on Dec 21, 2010 at 12:56pmJul '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Rob Long:" If you regulate the price of something -- rents in Manhattan; potatoes in Soviet Russia; milk in America's dairyland -- you get stagnation, shortages, inefficiency, and truly rotten service."
This is off-topic, Rob, but I believe you've just made an excellent argument against legalizing prostitution.
Once legalized, prostitution would be subject to regulation.
And no one wants a stagnant, short, inefficient, rotten prostitute.
Edited on Dec 21, 2010 at 11:02pmAug '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Again, from the WSJ article, just take a gander at the hodge-podge of regulations and exceptions:
In other words, complex, arbitrary, and contradictory regulations depending on the technology being used by which companies at which time for which customer, etc...
The confusion will only get worse:
Aug '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
So what?
I don't consider Facebook, Skype or Netflix to be essential services.
I don't believe that I have a right to Facebook, Skype or Netflix.
Besides, the new FCC regulation would allow a wireless provider to BLOCK Facebook, Skype, or Netflix if they thought they use up too much bandwidth.
So a wireless provider should be allowed to block a bandwidth hog but they shouldn't be allowed to charge extra for a bandwidth hog?
Edited on Dec 21, 2010 at 1:03pmJul '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
As long as I'm still assured of my right to access YouTubes of cats flushing toilets and ducklings terrorizing Rottweilers, I'm good to go.
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Misthiocracy
So what?
I don't consider Facebook, Skype or Netflix to be essential services.
I don't believe that I have a right to Facebook, Skype or Netflix.
· Dec 21 at 1:01pm
Edited on Dec 21 at 01:03 pm
You're leaving out the key sentence from that piece:
Charge all you want for bandwidth, that's fine. But don't make your own services cheaper just because you own the pipe that was awarded to you by a government contract.
Oct '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Ya gotta love the Drudge headline
FCC Gives Government Power to Regulate Web Traffic...
Used to be that we had a Constitution with that task.
The left got to where it is using a tool called civil disobedience. How do you do that when the Reich has already taken control of the DNS servers?
Aug '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Why?
I pay C$39.49 per month for my DSL service, from my non-profit ISP which is run mostly by volunteers. At that pricepoint I get a static IP address which allows me to run a web server out of my apartment.
At that price, I get up to 200GB per month of bandwidth. After that, I'm charged C$0.50 per GB.
Even though I run two websites off that connection, and I also use it to FTP large files from the computer in my living room to my laptop out "in the wild", and I also sometimes use the connection to connect to a proxy server, and I also use it to download movies, tv shows, and music from iTunes, YouTube, torrent (but never illegal torrents, of course), the most I've ever used in a month was 111GB.
It doesn't seem unreasonable for me to be charged extra if I go over the 200GB limit.
Jul '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
It was inevitable. With a name such as "world wide web," it was asking for federal bureaucracy.
Aug '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Blue Yeti
Charge all you want for bandwidth, that's fine. But don't make your own services cheaper just because you own the pipe that was awarded to you by a government contract. · Dec 21 at 1:11pm
Why not?
I'm assuming Vodaphone paid to build the transmission infrastructure and for the radio frequencies? Why should they be forced to provide services to their own competitors?
Should supermarkets be required to charge the same for Coca-Cola as for their own house brand of cola? They charge extra for Coca-Cola because people are willing to pay for it, even though the two products are objectively pretty damned similar.
And that assumes that Vodaphone's own services would be of similar quality as the name brand services. A customer can use Vodaphone's less-useful version of Facebook for free or the customer can pay a little extra for the real version of Facebook which all their friends use.
I simply do not see the problem. Facebook is not a right.
Edited on Dec 21, 2010 at 1:34pmAug '10
Re: Net Neutered: Obama Euthanizes the Web
Informed speculation follows.
First thing to remember is that most broadband comes from cable companies who want to preserve their cable television (and VOIP) business. Net neutrality will improve the position of digital distribution (eg, Netflix, iTunes, Amazon on demand) vis-a-vis traditional cable television. Currently, Hollywood makes a fortune on carriage fees (ie, the part of your cable bill that goes to the content provider) and so content stakeholders like WGA want to avoid anything that will disrupt the current business model.
Also worth noting, the last strike was about residuals on streaming and WGA basically lost. They may want to delay the development of the streaming market until they can successfully negotiate a better deal with the studios.