BrianGarst.com

Net neutrality is a “solution” seeking a problem. Contrary to the excess of doom mongering from certain corners, there is no evidence that an absence of government control will result in an internet where data and information discrimination is the norm. The evidence suggests just the opposite, in fact, as internet censorship across the world is always a product of government influence or control.

There is no potential problem that, lacking a government enforced net neutrality standard, market competition cannot handle. If an ISP were to slow down access to a particular website because that site owner did not pay a kickback fee, or because the ISP objected to its content for political – or any other – reasons, the public outcry would be tremendous. Customers would flee that company in droves, and it would be promptly put out of business. There is no check more powerful than that of free consumer choice.

Moreover, there are legitimate reasons why data might need to be prioritized. Some services might be so critical that any interruption in the transfer of data could be catastrophic. Those services alone should bear the cost for ensuring the high level of quality that they require. Even if a task is not that critical, as more and more high-bandwidth consuming activities continue to grow in popularity, it makes market sense to target the costs of those activities on those who are engaging in them. Because make no mistake, the alternative is that we all pay those costs, even if we receive no benefits.  The net neutrality debate is, at the end of the day, a question of who pays, not how much is paid. Additionally, being able to charge for a new, high bandwidth service is a strong incentive to develop such capacity in the first place. Infrastructure is expensive, and net neutrality rules could easily strangle investment in new capabilities and prevent the next big technology from ever arriving.

So why did this ever become such an issue? It was little more than rent seeking, plain and simple. Certain companies with business models that benefit from heavy use of the bandwidth provided by others want government to freeze the present arrangement – to their favor. The biggest player on this side of the debate has been Google, which owns bandwidth hog YouTube.

The nature of the debate changed recently, however, when Google and Verizon (an opponent of government regulation) came together to iron out their differences. I’m not going to get into the specific details of their proposal (and at 2 pages long, they didn’t get into too many themselves – rightly so, might I add), but some reactions to it are encouraging. For instance, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps whined that it would leave his agency “toothless” should it be adopted. That’s not quite as good as incapacitated – or better yet, nonexistent – but I’d settle for a toothless FCC.

In many ways, I think this agreement signifies a bit of growing up on the part of Google. Still very much a supporter of Progressive politics, the company has to be realizing – as the anti-trust cross-hairs slowly turn in its direction – that all the money and support in the world for leftist causes isn’t going to stop them from hating big business, or trying to destroy the same via government. And no matter how they try to portray themselves, Google is big business. So maybe this is that first little baby step for Google in the direction of supporting less power in the hands of government.

Still, I cannot offer overall support for one simple reason, which is captured right in the wording of the proposal’s headline. Namely, that it is a legislative framework, rather than an industry framework. Net neutrality is not a policy issue, it’s a technical issue. In other words, the proposal involves the use of government force for no good reason. I approve of Google and Verizon coming together (and ideally other companies as well) to find policies that best serve everyone. But whatever ideas they come up with should be voluntary. If their ideas are really as good as they believe, they can convince the public of that fact, and the public will then expect companies to adopt them. Or they can convince the companies directly. There is nothing they are asking the FCC to do that cannot be and is not already being accomplished by market competition.

The tech industry has long been guided by such voluntary guidelines and associations. Government has never been necessary for the enforcement of these beneficial rules, and it is not needed here. In fact, government involvement is counter-productive, as government rules are very difficult to change once instituted – a fact which is especially problematic for an industry that literally revolutionizes every few years.

I can easily understand why Verizon thinks it is a good idea to offer the government a tiny bit of authority in the hope of avoiding a complete FCC takeover of the internet and broadband services. It’s a tempting conclusion to reach that it might work, but I fear that bureaucrats are not so easily placated. They want power, and giving them a little taste of it will only encourage them to seek more. The whole situation reminds of Winston Churchill’s summation of appeasement, which he described as the feeding of a crocodile in hopes that it will eat you last.

Previous FCC attempts to stick its nose in the business of the internet have been slapped down, but they will try again. Likewise, and despite already being loathed by the public for their unpopular policy agenda, some in Congress still want to move net neutrality legislation, while special interest groups are pulling stunts to lobby for government support of particular business models.

Now is not the time to forget that there are professional bureaucrats plotting new and innovative ways to control all aspects of the market, including the internet. We have had some success in fighting them off to-date, but they have not given up. The Verizon-Google proposal is a step in the right direction, but there are still better choices yet. Remaining vigilante on this issue is critical to ensuring the right outcome is reached, and that the internet remains free of the shackles of big government.

Google net neutrality Verizon