net neutrality — VOICES for REASON

The Federal Communication Commission’s crusade to impose net neutrality rules on the Internet hit a speed bump Tuesday. A U.S. appeals court ruled that the FCC exceeded its regulatory authority when it sanctioned Comcast for slowing down bandwidth hogs on its network and issued net neutrality guidelines for ISPs. (Net neutrality is a murky term meaning, roughly, that the government should regulate the Internet in order to ensure that all data is treated equally.)

This is good news for proponents of Internet freedom. As my colleague Alex Epstein has written:

Because the Internet is based on voluntary association, no one can properly compel others for their ad space, bandwidth, publicity–or network priority. Those who create these values have the right to use and profit from them as they see fit. Google has no more right to demand that Verizon be “neutral” with its network than Verizon has a right to demand that Google be “neutral” with its coveted advertising space. . . . Read the rest of this entry »

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? Read the rest of this entry »