IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Friday, May 19, 2006

Un-Neutral Neutrality--Postmodern Conundrums
(previous | next)

Among the arguments deployed by net neutralists is that a regulatory mandate will give small, would-be innovators access to end-users without "gatekeeping" by broadband access providers. Since we are all postmodernists now, having digested the lessons of Larry Lessig's Code, we further know that the regulatory "code" will affect the path of innovation on the Internet, opening up some paths but foreclosing others. And to fully embrace the deconstructive import of this point, it follows that one can not have a normative preference for one path of innovation over another, without re-importing some normative preferences back into the decidely skeptical, postmodern analytic of Code.

Accordingly, if we must reimport a normative moral vision of the Internet and its structure, there is both a foundational problem for this vision and a practical problem of choosing one normative vision over another (or, in good postmodern skeptical fashion, we could simply be resigned that it is all power relationships, but then out ultimate objection to the ultimate normative outcome is decidedly feeble). But if we are going to be practical people, and not get drowned in my thicket of jargon written-above, then we must make some judgments about preferred paths for innovation given the choice of a rule, or not, will determine some of the outcomes.

Net Neutrality regulation expresses a categorical vision of a vertically disintegrated, non-price differentiated, non-quality or latency differentiated Internet. It follows that this will affect the paths of innovation, including the investment decisions by access, applications and content providers. For instance, unable to price or quality-differentiate, broadband access providers will be forbidden from specializing low latency, high quality connections for certain content or applications providers. In turn, it follows that innovation at higher levels of the Internet will trend away from high quality, low latency applications and content (like HD video or online gaming) because the infrastructure rules will not support these types of arrangements. In other words, both net neutrality regulated and a market-determined Internet will establish paths for growth, retrenchment and innovation depending on the rules. The market, however, will allow more paths to open up by allowing broader experimentation with business and compensation models.

I just can't figure out how net neutrality proponents can be so assured of the normative superiority of their outcomes.

posted by Ray Gifford @ 11:44 AM | Net Neutrality

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly


AMC Entertainment Inc., the nation's second-largest theater chain, said Tuesday it will offer free tickets for teachers wanting to see the movie "Freedom Writers," starring Hilary Swank...

Posted by: Sonny Delgado at February 13, 2007 2:09 AM

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation