IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Kennard on Net Neutrality
(previous | next)

We blog a great deal on net neutrality on this site; today I'm directing readers to other interesting perspectives.

We begin with former FCC Chairman Bill Kennard, a man who had his faults but was a tremendous breath of fresh air after the self-important reign of Reed Hundt. in Saturday's New York Times, Kennard calls the net neutrality debate what it really is:

This is essentially a battle between the extremely wealthy (Google, Amazon and other high-tech giants, which oppose such a move) and the merely rich (the telephone and cable industries). In the past year, collectively they have spent $50 million on lobbying and advertising, effectively preventing Congress and the public from dealing with more pressing issues.

Well said. Not surprisingly, Larry Lessig took issue with the editorial, and repeated his arguments against network property rights and in favor of government-mandated access and controls, a la France. Blogger Matt Sherman dissected the arguments nicely, rightly raising the First Amendment in opposition to net neutrality mandates. As for the argument that we should be more like the French -- which Lessig also made at a congressional hearing earlier this year -- Sherman eviscerates that. For more on why the French economy should not be the model read my TCS Daily piece from earlier this year.

Richard Bennett could be expected to have some insights on this front, and he doesn't fail. Bennett, knowing a wee bit about network architecture, notes that Lessig's arguments focus on painting one side as more virtuous than the other, and making the case with an odd vision of history. Bennett's take? "This is not exactly a highly sophisticated argument. In fact, it's wrong in just about every way an argument can be wrong: logically, factually, intellectually, and emotionally."

What more is there to say? Well, a fair amount, actually, which can be found in PFF's compiled works here.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 11:18 AM | Broadband , Communications , Internet , Net Neutrality

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly


The advocates of network neutrality have become distressingly, stridently apocalyptic, rallying all good liberals against ?those with the deepest pockets?corporations, special-interest groups, and major advertisers, who decide what you get to see and how much it costs,? and especially ?the billion-dollar telephone and cable companies that now dominate the business of providing broadband connections to the public?who want to control what you read, see or hear online?.Major corporate sites would be able to pay the new fees, while little-guy sites could be shut out.? That?s a fair composite quote.

Now wait just a minute.

I consider myself a good liberal Democrat. I played a leading role in the deregulation of the airlines (as Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board) and trucking (as Advisor to President Carter on Inflation), against the almost unanimous opposition of the major airlines and trucking companies. Our strongest sponsors and supporters at that time were President Carter, Senator Ted Kennedy, Stephen (now Supreme Court Justice) Breyer, and such organizations as Common Cause, Public Citizen, the Consumer Federation of America?and Southwest Airlines.

This is not the place to argue about the consequences of those deregulations. What is unarguable is that airline deregulation has saved travelers billions of dollars annually and made air travel affordable for people with modest means, just as we intended.

I have played an active role also?as Chairman of the New York State Public Service Commission and consistently, both before and after?opposing the efforts of AT&T to induce the FCC and Congress to protect its historical monopoly. I have also been a consistent public advocate of strong antitrust policy over the last half century.

Our premise?in opposition to reactionaries and to the indifference or scorn of radicals?was that wherever it is feasible, competition is a far better protector of the interest of both consumers and content providers (think radio, television, motion pictures and the Internet) than government ownership or regulation. In telecommunications, cable and telephone companies compete increasingly with one another, and while the two largest wireless companies?Cingular and Verizon?are affiliated with AT&T and Verizon, respectively, some 97 percent of the population has at least a third one competing for their business as well; and Sprint and Intel have recently announced their plan to spend 3 billion dollars on mobile Wi-Max facilities nationwide. Scores of municipalities?led by Philadelphia and San Francisco?are building their own Wi-Fi networks. And on the horizon are the electric companies, already beginning to use their ubiquitous power lines to offer broadband?to content providers on the one side and consumers, on the other.

By far the most promising intensification of that competition is the tens of billions of dollars that the phone companies themselves are spending converting copper to fiber, which will enable them to offer video programming pervasively in direct competition with the cable companies. Can anyone seriously believe that competition would be forthcoming if those incumbents were still subject to public utility-type regulation? Or prevented from surcharging the heaviest content suppliers?the ones demanding the speediest possible access to subscribers that those telco investments will make possible?

In describing the danger that the telephone and/or cable companies will, as the preponderant suppliers of broadband access, discriminate against competitive providers of service or programming, every single network neutrality advocate, to my knowledge, cites the case of the Madison River Communications (telephone) Company?s refusal to carry the messages of Vonage, the leading independent provider of telephone service via the Internet. Not one of them mentions the fact that the FCC promptly stepped in to prohibit that obvious violation of antitrust principles?as did the Canadian Radio-television Regulatory Commission in exactly the same situation. It is unthinkable that the regulatory or antitrust agencies would not strike down any other such discrimination by the telephone or cable companies against competing providers of content in favor of their own.

As for the fear that those companies will, as one net-net advocate predicted, ?create different tiers of online service?sell access to the express lane to deep-pocketed corporations and relegate everyone else to the digital equivalent of the winding dirt road??it is difficult to understand why if, as a New Republic editorial supporting a Congressional mandate of network neutrality points out, without apparent disapproval, ?content providers from Google and Amazon to Daily Kos?currently pay web-hosting companies to put their content on the Internet [and] still make money,? its editors should consider it objectionable that the providers of broadband Internet access ?will be able to charge content providers a fee to deliver their content to consumers and, in particular, an additional surcharge to deliver their content?more quickly?.? Newspapers charge advertisers for access to their readers?more for big ads than small ones? television and cable companies charge similarly for access to their audiences; and the charges vary widely depending upon the anticipated size of the audience. Why is that any different from the proposed additional fees for guarantees of the unusually rapid rates of transmission required for some content with its greater claim on the broadband facilities?

Some 25 years ago, I thought it was logical to try to prevent cable television companies, as beneficiaries of exclusive territorial franchises, from discriminating against unaffiliated suppliers of programming in favor of their own by prohibiting broadcasters holding a financial interest in the programs they carried. I eventually recognized, however, the public benefits from the especial incentives of the several broadcasters to produce programming of their own, as well as to bid for independent programming, in competition with one another; and that that competition sufficiently protects independent providers from discrimination or exploitation. If Google and eBay depend upon the telephone and cable companies for reaching their audiences, that dependence is mutual: what would happen to the willingness of subscribers to sign up for DSL or cable modem service if one or the other of those suppliers decided not to carry Google or eBay?

Demonstrably, those broadband facilities have to be created by investments?especially huge ones by the telephone companies? and applications requiring priority transmission can entail lower priority transmission of others. Except as broadband service is subsidized by governments?a possibility I do not exclude?those costs must be collected from users?subscribers to broadband services, on the one side, providers of programming or content on the other, or some combination of the two?just as in the case of newspapers or television stations.

Why all the hysteria? There is nothing ?liberal? about the government rushing in to regulate these wonderfully promising turbulent developments.

Posted by: Alfred Kahn at October 27, 2006 4:19 PM

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