Creative Net Neutrality solutions?

That’s one way to do it [1]:

Not content to wait for Congress to act, a group of Maryland state legislators is backing a smaller-scale attempt at putting a Net neutrality mandate in place.

Delegate Herman Taylor [2], a Democrat who represents a county just outside of Washington D.C., introduced House Bill 1069 [3] on Feburary 9. As of Friday, more than 20 of his colleagues had signed on as co-sponsors.

It’s probably good idea to start working on this as a state-based issue since the federal government doesn’t seem to be making any headway. Big teleco just has too much sway in Washington and I doubt the general public really has any concept of the implications behind messing with our “series of tubes” to exert any meaningful grassroots pressure.

This reminded me, however, of an idea I was once toying with about internationalizing this debate. For example, I recall reading about certain provisions [4] in NAFTA that allow corporations and states to sue if policies are enacted that threaten profit potential (I’m pretty sure the WTO has taken a similar approach). This is what has allowed bottled water companies to sue Canada and Mexico [5] over environmental policies. In my humble opinion, this is patently unfair – particularly since such supra-national institutions were never subject to democratic will. That being said, I wonder if this holds any precedent for the current debate.

Much as we in the US might claim ownership of “the internet”, it is an international good to which all countries have more or less equal access via the open DNS. As someone who owns and operates a small website in Ireland that specifically targets traffic in the United States, I represent exactly the kind of international entity that would be effectively screwed by the implementation of a tiered system. Of course, my site operates at a permanent loss (donations, anyone?) so I doubt I personally have a grievance, though certainly there are larger multinationals that would.

This then raises the question: does the United States’ failure to enforce homogenized network access violate our trade agreement under international law? Does failure to legislate against preferential data transfer effectively amount to a form of negative legislation in which profits are unlawfully threatened?

I have exactly zero legal training, so I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on the subject.

Comments

Ken (not verified)Tue, 2007-02-20 16:34

Re: Creative Net Neutrality solutions?

What the ISP companies are attempting to do is perfectly moral and should be legal, since without them, no one has access to the internet in the first place.  The problem I foresee, is that certain websites will start to partner with ceratin ISPs.  For example, Amazon might partner with Comcast, while BestBuy or Barnes & Noble might partner with Verizon, etc.  Bandwidth would then be increased for customers looking to access "partnered" websites and either maintained or even decreased for "competition".  There's really nothing wrong with that as it still places a choice in the hands of the consumer.  So long as an ISP isn't enforcing a government mandate to block certain websites, freedom of speech issues don't apply.

Also, the "internet" as we know it is not owned by any one person, country, etc.  Individual websites are owned by people and companies, as are the ISPs who give us access to those websites.  There is no collective ownership of the internet.  It is not "our internet".  It is a space where access requires a membership fee.  Be forewarned: if Net Neutrality winds up decreeing the internet is a "public space", you will soon see government regulations imposed on EVERYTHING on the cybernetic highways (much like internet gambling currently is in the US).  How's that for a comforting thought?

Jay Daverth [7]Tue, 2007-02-20 18:56

Re: Creative Net Neutrality solutions?

I have to disagree wityour point about public ownership of the internet.  In fact, most of the infrastructure in the US was effectively nationalized by the anti-trust against AT&T in the 80s.  Those lines belong to the public in common and are leased for use by anyone who wishes to use them (whoever wants to provide internet service has equal access to the lines).  There is no law that MCI, Southwestern Bell, or anyone else is the only one who is allowed to use "their" lines, these are merely companies who use publicly -owned infrastructures to make a profit.  Therefore, much as the television airwaves, as a citizen of this country I certainly am entitled to an opinion on how my public goods are disseminated.

Ken (not verified)Wed, 2007-02-21 02:31

Re: Creative Net Neutrality solutions?

Well that figures. My first response disappeared from here.  Here it goes again.

The infrastructure is owned by the government and leased to companies who utilize the infrastructure to provide a service, much like oil extraction from public lands and utilizing "air waves" for FM, AM, and television stations.  What is NOT owned by the government (or "the public") is the technology that utilizes that infrastructure to provide the profitable service.  The government does not own oil rigs, it does not own the ISP servers, it does not own the transmission towers and antennas, etc.

Your opinion might hold weight with decisions about what to do affecting that infrastructure, such as upgrading the lines themselves, or even tearing them down.  Your opinion holds no weight in telling a company how to utilize that infrastructure with their technology.  If you don't like the technology (the cable station, the ISP, the oil company, etc.), then don't buy it.  In the meantime, there are those of us in this country who DO want the service and ARE willing to pay for it.  If it turns out the service is a bad business idea, it will fail.  In the meantime, what say do any of us have, besides our wallets, in what services a company may or may not provide?

Be very careful with this Net Neutrality.  It is truly an attempt to nationalize internet service providers.  And what happens to the price of something once it's a government sanctioned monopoly?  Mmmm hmmm.