It’s time we talked about “net neutrality,” but I’ll keep it short. You’re welcome.
Well, also I’m watching Evil Dead 2 with the lights off and don’t want too many distractions.
The internet was, in a way, built around neutrality, as conceived by DARPA all those years ago. DARPANET was supposed to be a way to maintain national communications, no matter what. And in the darkest days of the Cold War, “no matter what” meant the worst of the worst.
Entire cities could get nuked out of existence, but the bits would still flow from point A to point C. Point B might be black-green glass where Cleveland used to be, but DARPANET would find a way around. “Neutrality” was built in; a feature, not a bug.
To the Internet, bits are bits. Its job is to get the bits from where they are to where they’re wanted. The idea of some third party — your ISP, for example — getting a chance to say, “No, these bits have to wait,” or, “these bits get charged more money than those bits,” goes against the grain.
And as Americans, that system suits our particular (not to say peculiar) brand of egalitarianism. By and large, it’s American that some people get rich and some people don’t. It’s equally American that nobody, no matter how rich or poor, gets to cut in line at the supermarket checkout.
And right or wrong, I always thought that bits on the internet moved like customers in the checkout line. First come, first serve — although we all get to roll our eyes and fidget at the old lady taking seventeen forevers to write a check instead of swiping a card like the rest of us.
Now the ISPs want to charge more for some bits than others, or cut off bits coming from Point B, or whatever stupid-ass thing it is they want to do — just to squeeze more money out of its customers, while changing entirely everything we’ve become accustomed to on the internets for the last five, ten, fifteen or more years.
Well, “screw them,” is my take.
But…
It’s their fiber optic line. It’s their copper wire. Don’t they have the right to charge all the traffic will bear?
But…
Isn’t the internet, at its heart, a set of national — now, international — standards, for getting bits to flow freely? And quickly? And where rich and poor alike all stand in the same queue?
The libertarian in me says the First But must rule the day. You want to ride the train, you pay the fare.
My conservative side says that the internet we have now functions best, and that the Law of Unintended Consequences would lead to disaster.
This time, the conservative side wins — sort of.
The standards we have in place work for everyone, even the ISPs. And while you can’t blame them for trying to maximize their profits, there’s one little problem. That problem has a name. And that name is: Congress.
I just don’t trust Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get net neutrality right. This isn’t a partisan thing, either — back in 2005, I wouldn’t have trusted the then-Republican leadership to do it right, either. With our current Inside the Beltway crowd, no matter which side is in charge, I’d expect any net-neutrality bill to end up as some sort of rent-seeking agreement designed to help someone, anyone, other than us consumers.
The problem with the status quo is, it’s likely to get worse. But if this Congress steps in, then things are almost certain to get worse.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
10 Comments
1. Mike Rossiter:Steve,
Really? You expect someone would bother sending a nuke at Cleveland when there are so many more useful targets?
That being said, I largely agree with you. What we seem to have here are two entirely separate corporate entities doing a little rent seeking, each for their own benefit. Unfortunately, the only thing I have less faith in than rent seeking corporations is politicians.
Oct 30, 2009 - 10:24 pm 2. Stephen Green:Mike –
You’ve just described the reason I’ve left this whole issue alone for years now — and it seems like we’re in the same boat. Our instincts go one way, but our political sense goes the other. So it wasn’t until a bill came up that looked like it might possibly passed that I forced myself to write something. Anything. To effing decide something. Anything.
And I’m still not happy with the results. My results, I mean.
I miss the good old days when, each morning, I’d receive an envelope from Mr. Rove filled with a stack of hundreds the size of a brick and my talking points for the day.
Oct 30, 2009 - 10:35 pm 3. Deb:gotta love capitalism…or not
Oct 30, 2009 - 10:51 pm 4. Tweets that mention Vodkapundit » Late Night Rambling -- Topsy.com:[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stephen Green, Right. Right said: {vodkapundit} Late Night Rambling http://tinyurl.com/ydylmkm [...]
Oct 31, 2009 - 12:12 am 5. Neutral on Net Neutrality:[...] Joyner | Saturday, October 31, 2009 Stephen Green is torn on the issue of net neutrality, with his libertarian side thinking Internet service [...]
Oct 31, 2009 - 6:26 am 6. Dominic:Well as we said back in the day.. The Opposite of PROgress in CONgress… Its the consistancey of those guys that startles and amazes me to this day…
Oct 31, 2009 - 7:30 am 7. aodhan:I think you’ve found the sensible middle ground, Steve. I’ve spent lots of time among geeks who grow incandescent over the idea that a private company who built a network on their own dime for customers other than them get to prioritize traffic on their network.
The opposite take includes references to geeks as ‘digital barbarians’ and is similarly stupid.
IN the end, I trust corporations to err on the side of their own profit, which means you can usually guess where they’ll go. I prefer that over some federal agency having the power to determine what a ‘proper’ news web site is.
Oct 31, 2009 - 8:59 am 8. McGehee:The libertarian argument that ISPs should be able to do as they please with their infrastructure presupposes the ready availability of alternatives for those customers who don’t like what their current ISP decides to do.
Unfortunately infrastructure remains a relatively scarce commodity for now. The question is, how is that to change if the industry in question is regulated around the status quo of scarcity? Regulation has the effect of decreasing the risks of operating within an uncomfortable status quo, and increasing the risks of trying to break it.
When was the last time anyone had to do business with a particular phone company for long-distance service? Hell, I don’t even have to do business with my local phone company anymore. A lot of that is because of new technology such as cellular and VOIP, but it’s also because phone service has been liberated from the local monopoly system our grandparents lived with.
Oct 31, 2009 - 9:22 am 9. AuntWie:Can’t we just pass a law that says, “Congress shall pass no law”? Then we could use Bill Whittle’s suggestion of paying them all to go home. Or we could just let them all sit there. The conservatives could discuss books and ideas. The liberals could play old maid. We could hire some pre-preschoolers to teach them.
Oct 31, 2009 - 12:07 pm 10. dorkafork:It’s their fiber optic line. It’s their copper wire. Don’t they have the right to charge all the traffic will bear?
Not when we give them monopoly control. Not when they abuse their monopoly. Not when they swindle us out of $200 billion. (“Built on their own dime” my ass.) That’s plenty to get the libertarian side of me to glow incandescent, nevermind the geek side. (“NET NEUTRALITY! Slooowly I turn…”)
Net Neutrality really should be a natural fit for libertarians/conservatives of all stripes. I am shocked and dismayed at the kind of pushback I’ve been seeing lately.
Nov 1, 2009 - 9:35 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.