Lawrence Lessig has a new article over at Wired where he considers the possibility that he was wrong about Microsoft, and might be wrong about net neutrality:
I think about this mistake whenever I think about the current Microsoft-like network-neutrality debate – whether network owners can pick the stuff that flows across “their” network. In this debate, too, I am a reluctant regulator. And again, I don’t see how it’s possible to steer broadband providers away from a business model that – like Microsoft’s – may benefit them but could stifle innovation. Every dominant commercial competitor has the same incentive: to build a business that extracts all potential value from the pipes that company owns.
Every competitor (dominant or not) does everything it can to extract value from its product. This drives efficiency and productivity, which are the two main predictors of prosperity in any society. These are the reason that a place like Stanford exists in the first place.
(And by “extract value”, I mean “provide something that people will pay for”. All the power resides with consumer so long as the market remains free.)
Importantly, Lessig recognizes that the anti-trust lawsuit did nothing to change Microsoft’s position in the market. Instead, Linux, developed by volunteers, has provided competition which in turn has made Microsoft less dominant and more responsive. I think that’s a fine thing and a market response, since consenting citizens have dedicated their resources voluntarily.1
Lessig wonders if something similar can happen for broadband. Unfortunately, he looks to municipal governments to provide “competition” to the commercial network providers:
So, are we reluctant regulators wrong again? [...] Can last-mile broadband be developed in a way that doesn’t rely on the incentives that drive current providers toward innovation-stifling business models?
Yes. [...]
The core of this resistance comes from municipalities. Local governments are building neutral infrastructures that allow anyone, from ISPs to community networks, to use and extend blisteringly fast broadband networks. [...]
Those who oppose network-neutrality regulation should also oppose this regulation of last-mile broadband’s most important competitor.
Categorically incorrect. There is a vast difference between a government building a network, and a group of volunteers building a product, and it is this: there is nothing voluntary or grassroots about government.
As I have mentioned before, government will fund projects regardless of their success or customer demand. And the funding comes from taxpayers, who did not in any way volunteer their resources.
Mr. Lessig should know that government, by definition, is the largest and most unaccountable monopoly. If citizens want to dedicate their own resources to an “open source” network, more power to them. But please do not mistake a coercive bureaucracy for a movement.
----
There is a very good discussion of this over at Reason entitled Stop Me Before I Regulate Again!. Be sure to scroll down for the comments.
----
1 Let’s be clear: Linux is a factor primarily due to the efforts of for-profit companies like IBM, RedHat and Novell. Without them, Linux is a hobbyists’ project and nothing more.
Comments