The distortions in the way the Trump FCC’s
rollback of the Obama FCC’s so-called Net Neutrality rules is being reported is
disgraceful. For example, AP reported:
The Federal Communications Commission repealed Obama-era “net
neutrality” rules Dec. 14, giving internet service providers like Verizon,
Comcast and AT&T a free hand to slow or block websites and apps as they see
fit or charge more for faster speeds.
No. The FCC didn’t “give” the ISPs anything. It
restored the rights of ISP providers to manage content traffic on their own
networks—the networks that they built—as they see fit.
The original Obama rules did give something—a
free ride to big content providers like Google, Facebook, and Netflix that
lobbied for Net Neutrality regulations so they didn’t have to pay a voluntarily
agreed-upon price or contractual conditions with the ISPs. In other words, the
high-minded sounding “net neutrality” rules were just a crony regulation.
More seriously—though given far too little
attention—the Net Neutrality power grab by government is a threat to free
speech. In the name of “protecting consumers,” the rules put a handful of
politically-appointed bureaucrats in charge of managing the flow of content
across the internet. Thus the market—the cumulative choices of consumers that
ultimately drives the ISP’s management—will no longer be the governing factor.
The whims of government officials will. Once a precedent is net, its
consequences spread and metastasize.
And it didn’t take long.
Intellectual freedom is crucial to the
maintenance of a free and civil society. It’s no accident that the Founders
made the protection of intellectual freedom explicit through the very First
Amendment to the Constitution. The FCC’s 2015 so-called “net neutrality” rule
was an opening wedge of control and an attack on that freedom where it is the
most unfettered—the internet. It didn’t take long to see why and how that rule
was only a start. As the Washington Post recently reported in The
Switch: Tech
companies pushed for net neutrality. Now Sen. Al Franken wants to turn it on
them:
For years, tech companies have insisted that they're different
from everything else. Take Facebook, which has long claimed that it's a simple
tech platform, not a media entity. “Don't be evil,” Google once said to its
employees, as though it were setting itself apart from the world's other
massive corporations.
But now, some policymakers are increasingly insisting that firms
such as Google, Facebook and Twitter really aren't that special after all — and
that perhaps it's time they were held to the same standard that many Americans
expect of electricity companies or Internet providers.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) became the latest and most vocal of
these critics Wednesday when, at a Washington conference, he called for tech
companies to follow the same net
neutrality principles that the
federal government has applied to broadband companies such as Verizon, AT&T
and Comcast.
There you have it. The lure of political
power—the power of the gun to coerce and control—is insatiable. Electric
companies, bad as those monopolies are, carry mere electricity. Internet
providers carry intellectual content. When government took the step of forcing
“net neutrality” on the Internet Service Providers, they took a huge step
toward control of the intellectual life of Americans. Now they’re agitating to
take the next step—extend that control to content providers. Once we started
down the road of government control of the internet camouflaged as “net neutrality,”
there was nothing to stand in the way of power-lusters to expand their reach. A
“call” for “net neutrality” on Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al, will
eventually turn into a legal mandate and control if it is not stopped.
The widespread support for net neutrality among successful Internet companies — including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, and Amazon — is short-sighted and contemptible. These companies, which have benefited greatly from the unimpeded freedom of the Internet, are now trying to deny the same freedom to innovative ISPs and ambitious competitors under the egalitarian banner of “equal access.” This is an invitation for any clever moocher to demand “equal access” to their hard-earned resources; indeed, Google is already being sued because its proprietary search engine allegedly gives “unfair” rankings to certain companies. [My emphasis]
To be clear, the FCC’s 2015 “net neutrality”
rule didn’t
replace an unregulated
internet. There was regulation, by the FTC, targeted at specific complaints as
they arose. Nor was the “net neutrality” some iron-clad guarantee of strict
sameness in how ISPs managed traffic on their systems. There were
plenty of “loopholes” for the
ISPs to exploit under “net neutrality”. The ISP’s could still discriminate—but
only after getting FCC permission. ” As my Mercatus Center colleague Brent
Skorup has tirelessly
pointed out,” Andrea
O'Sullivan points out,
the OIO [Open Internet Order, aka “Net Neutrality”] did not
require all internet actors—ranging from ISPs to content platforms to domain
name registrars and everything else—to be content-blind and treat all traffic
the same. Rather, it erected an awkward permission-and-control regime within
the FCC that only affected a small portion of internet technology companies.
[my emphasis]
In other words, the government seizes control.
But the details are beside the point. As the
great James Madison once
said in the context of defending religious liberty
from government encroachment, “The free men of America did not wait till
usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question
in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided
the consequences by denying the principle."
The principle involved today is the idea that
the companies that have given us unprecedented freedom to talk to one another
should be controlled by the state. A state that can dictate how content can be
carried on the ISP’s networks can also dictate what content can and cannot be
allowed on the networks. Franken’s jab at the content providers shows the
principle in action. Therefore, we should deny that principle—the principle
that the government should have any say whatsoever in what content flows on the
internet and how it flows, what it costs, how it is managed, etc. Electricity
is one thing. But for all the hollow talk by net neutralityists about
protecting consumers, who in their right mind would want the state to dictate
what we say and how we say it to each other?
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai made this very point last week at an R
Street Institute event on the repeal. Major
edge service providers like Google, Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter have made
their opposition to OIO deregulation loud and clear to their user base. Some
have displayed automatic messages on their front pages, urging visitors to take
action and encourage others to do the same. Yet at the same time, these
services engage in kinds of content blocking that they say broadband providers
could possibly do.
This hypocrisy is relevant for more than just ideological
inconsistency. It's about economic power. By encouraging harsh regulation of
ISPs that effectively controls the rates that major tech companies can be
charged for bandwidth, these companies are engaging in a kind of regulatory
capture.
While I dispute O’Sullivan’s characterization of
the edge service (content) providers demanding that net neutrality be imposed
on the ISPs as economic power—regulation is actually political power, and there
is a night-and-day
difference there—the point is
clear. Franken is right: If net neutrality is the goal, then why shouldn’t the
“tech companies . . . follow the same net
neutrality principles that the
federal government has applied to broadband companies such as Verizon, AT&T
and Comcast?” The principle demands it. There’s no logical reason why they
shouldn’t.
Which is precisely why the net neutrality rules
should have been repealed. Avoid the consequences of the principle by denying
the principle!
Let’s not be suckered by the statists or the cronyists.
“Net Neutrality” is not about consumer protection, which is already adequately
covered by anti-fraud and breach-of-contract laws. It’s about government
control—about erecting a
“permission-and-control regime within the FCC.” Government-imposed “net
neutrality” rules are stupid in terms of economics and stifling of innovation, and unfair in terms of violating the property rights of the ISPs that built
their networks. But “net neutrality” mandates are also downright dangerous to
intellectual freedom—our freedom to express our thoughts—and should be
repealed. We should do no less than follow Madison’s advice, and deny the
government any say in controlling how the ISPs and tech companies manage their
businesses and networks, as a matter of principle. Our ability to freely speak,
communicate, debate, and rebut ideas is at stake. Repeal the government’s Net
Neutrality rules and forbid them from ever re-imposing such rules again.
Better yet, abolish
the FCC as the major threat to
freedom of speech that it is. Net Neutrality supporters profess concern about
the “power” of the ISP’s to control content flow on their networks. But it’s
their networks, after all. Their power—economic power—derives from their
ability to build and provide an offer of internet service, which consumers are
free to accept or reject. The power that should be of concern is the
government’s power—political power; the power to coerce and control and enforce
edicts at the point of a gun. That’s the power that the FCC brings to bear on
the flow of information and ideas across the internet. It’s not enough to say
the government would never use its power to stifle that flow. But that’s not
the point. It can use it covertly, by way of regulatory extortion, just as
easily though less detectably as it can overtly. But even if not, a government
of a free country should never have that power to begin with—not the power to
control intellectual discourse nor, more broadly, the power to interfere in
private economic contract between private citizens or their companies without
evidence of rights violations. Our intellectual and economic freedom should not
be at the mercy of government officials or politics
Good riddance to Net Neutrality. We need legal
neutrality—a government that protects rights equally and at all times. Don’t
give the next administration the opportunity to reimpose these rules, or
something even worse. Abolish the Federal Communications Commission now.
Related Reading:
1 comment:
You must give better intellectual (philosophical) backing to your clarion call. Your intellectual backing lacks because of your continuing confusion of crime and criminal plan with law and government, and of initiatory (criminal) physical force with political power. But the people will ignore your clarion call, even if it's made by a famous person with a long cultural reach, anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. People ignore it because they rejected it long ago, even before our time.
Net neutrality rules aren't stupid. They're deliberately formulated and aimed at achieving criminal objectives. They're not unfair. Fairness is irrelevant here. Neutrality rules are simply criminal. ALL the purveyors are crooks. Realizing these things are key to a sufficient intellectual backing of your clarion call, except there's no rational audience of hominids.
The writing is on the wall for the elections of 2018 and 2020. See the writing on the wall?
Post a Comment