Neutrality for thee, but not for me

Sonia Arrison points out that one of the lead proponents of “net neutrality”, Google, apparently thinks that neutrality should be forced upon certain, other billion-dollar corporations, but not itself. (Background here.)

The essential “moral” point of the neutrality proponents is the preservation of equal access to all Internet content. Meanwhile, Google News has taken upon itself to censor a number of news and commentary sites from its service. It has deemed them unacceptable.

Now, let me be clear: I believe that any private organization is within its legal rights to publish, or not publish, anything it wants. Basic First Amendment, as I have said before.

Google’s position on neutrality is one of naked self-interest. They make a lot of money, and federal enforcement of net neutrality will lock in many advantages for them — not least, making the entrance of new competition more difficult. If they believe they have the right to choose what information flows through its own infrastructure, they should advocate a similar right for all players on the Internet.

Please do not be suckered by those who would tell you that the neutrality argument is “of the people”. It is a big old wrestling match between big corporations, looking for favorable laws to improve their business. More importantly, it is a huge power grab by government over the infrastructure of the ‘net.

Rule of thumb: when invasive new laws are proposed that are “for the people” or “for the kids”, you should give it as much credence as when a celebrity tells you it is “not about the money”.

Instead of picking which corporation is the most “moral”, perhaps we should do the math and argue the merits. The merits say, the fewer laws, the better.

------

Update:  Sonia has another excellent piece on broadband expansion here, reinforcing my previous article here.

------

Update again: Welcome Instapundit readers! The above may sound a bit obscure but it really is a question of who runs the ‘net: private citizens or government? Here is a primer to get you started.

Comments

[Jack Spirko]

First, let me say I am really happy to see a conservatitive from San Fran and tend to agree with many of the positions you post about and in fact I am my self a faily die hard republican. More accurately an Independent who votes Republican 99% of the time.

On the neutrality debate I take much different view then most of the Republican party has thus far. I would ask you to read my post that examines the debate from both sides and strives to be non partial in doing so it can be found at http://www.comtechnews.net/telecom/45

For why I support Neutrality the main reason is that the providers that want to charge publishers for a fast lane are doing so at the expense of other publishers and in doing so are restricting the user.

This is a lot like selling voters on "adding a toll funded express lane" to an existing highway and telling them it is "optional" and will benifit those who wish to pay for it but won't hurt those who don't. Then funding the building with public money and still charging the toll and WORSE you they don't build a new lane, no they take away an existing lane and just add a baracade and a toll both.

On Google's blocking of some content that is different as they are a PUBLISHER of content not a PROVIDER of internet access. When google "blocks" a site it does not prevent you from going there or slow down your experience when you do as it would if your ISP did the same.

As for regulation hurting the little guy I agree again 99% of the time, but who is it that wants to charge for these "express lanes"? It is AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc! The companies who have the longest track record of blocking competition and sticking it to the consumer in existance in the free market.

I challange you to examine this position further.

Jack Spirko

[Matt S]

Hi Jack, your article on net neutrality is fair and very thorough. Indeed, many folks who are traditionally right-of-center are of two minds on this.

I don't have any particular love for the incumbents at all -- any of the players really. If anything, I am a greater admirer of the work of Microsoft, Google and others on the content side.

My basic argument is about neutrality *legislation* more than neutrality as a concept. An attempt to legislate the architecture and performance of the network can only be a disaster, even if we have legitimate fears of the incumbents.

The question to ask is, exactly what would we make illegal? And how would we enforce it? It inevitably leads to a public utility model -- a disaster for innovation junkies like myself. It diverts resources to regulatory compliance instead of real network development.

My other argument is that we have all the laws we need. The FTC, for example, is fully empowered to judge and pursue market abuses. Let's let those laws work, if necessary, and case-by-case. Blanket legislation will just turn the incentives on their heads, and set us back, in my humble opinion.

Here's a piece that makes my points better than I do: http://www.telepocalypse.net/archives/000905.html

If you care to sort through my rants, here's the long enchilada: http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/net_neutrality_and_municipal_wifi/

Your points are very good ones. Those of us who really believe in small gov't have much to think about here...