How not to oppose net neutrality — VOICES for REASON

Here’s the basic argument given for net neutrality, the idea that the government should regulate the Internet in order to ensure that all data is treated equally: The Internet belongs to society, it must be used for society’s benefit, and allowing Internet Service Providers to abuse their massive power by controlling networks for their own benefit is harmful to society; therefore, the government should step in to ensure neutrality (e.g., prevent ISPs from offering priority to users willing to pay more to guarantee, say, a reliable Skype connection).

Here’s how one recent column puts it. Approvingly citing a new book by Larry Downes, the columnist writes:

[Downes'] view is that “U.S. consumers have plenty of reasons to be suspicious of both the FCC and the communications industry.” His advice: “Consumers should ask themselves which of these powerful interests is more likely in the end to abuse its power. Who, in other words, has the greater potential to make things worse for everyone?”

Oh, wait. It turns out that both Downes and the column’s author, L. Gordon Crovitz, oppose net neutrality. They believe that the government poses the greater potential threat. Why? Well, according to the Crovitz/Downes argument, even though people are right to be suspicious of private industry, even though it has power on par with government, even though it could potentially abuse this power, people should trust industry because we believe it’s likely the government will make things even worse.

You’ll forgive me for the confusion. The Crovitz/Downes argument grants virtually every premise invoked by the supporters of net neutrality. It says that we face two threats to the Internet, government and industry, and asks us to quibble over which is worse. This is a total concession and a terrible injustice. The truth is the communications industry is not a villain that threatens the Internet: it is in large part responsible for the constant improvements and innovations that make the Internet so valuable. Yet, in the name of ensuring net neutrality, the government is poised to violate the industry’s rights.

A proper critique of net neutrality would reject this entire approach. It would reject the notion that the Internet is some collective product of society’s that “consumers” have the right to dispose of however they choose. It would recognize that the Internet is, in fact, the product of voluntary associations between millions of individuals and companies, all of whom have the right to use their private property as they see fit. It would recognize that an Internet Service Provider has a right to manage its network according to its own judgment, and that its only power is the power to offer willing customers a service more valuable than its competitors. A proper critique of net neutrality would say that the government has no right to place shackles on the Internet, and that its only legitimate function is to protect Internet freedom. You can find just such a critique, written by my colleague Alex Epstein, here.

Image: flickr