Net neutrality as Sarbanes-Oxley

Tim Wu argues the following on ‘net neutrality:

I believe that thinking libertarians fear two types of centralized power: that exercised by government, and that exercised by government-supported monopolistic incumbents, like AT&T.

The Network Neutrality debate is really a debate about what are, in effect, crown corporations, AT&T and Verizon, whose plans would distort private competition among internet service providers.  Companies like AT&T are infrastructure providers, almost like the roads — and their plans are very much simple tollbooths placed on a utility necessary for the operation of the private market.  That’s why I think even libertarians have reason to resist the incursions of a company like AT&T on the internet and its design.

I am not an advocate of any particular corporation, but his assertion that AT&T and others are essentially part of the government is quite a leap. AT&T (and Verizon and Qwest and Comcast and Cox...) have no monopoly, are indeed quite competitive, and are not gov’t sponsored. He blithely equates the ‘net with roads and other utilities.

That may have been the case 20+ years ago, but more to the point, do we really wish our Internet to be run like a utility? Look at the health and performance of the highly regulated utilities in this country. The Internet can, and should, be so much more.

Also, Dale Franks (in the comments on his QandO story) seems to be realizing that a libertarian position really can’t countenance more regulation over less. Not that we should make these decisions strictly out of orthodoxy, of course, but his instinct is right.

If the utility argument is not persuasive, consider this: ‘net neutrality legislation would probably end doing to the network what Sarbanes-Oxley has done for finance. It has not cleaned up any bad actors; rather, it has created a lot of expensive documentation and made our capital markets lethargic and risk-averse.

-----

More background here.