The perfect Network Neutrality Foil

In a recent Forbes commentary I found a wonderful opportunity to show why network neutrality is important by contrasting individual rights with corporate profit motive. 

Phil Kerpen's comments are the perfect foil for anyone interested in democracy and a free and open society. His silly, Rovean playground insults leveled at "network neutrality Cassandras" and "the angry left" serve only to remove Mr. Kerpen from list of serious thinkers.

As for the details of his commentary...

He states:

"What is network neutrality? In its strictest form, it means a government mandate that Internet service providers have to treat all of the bits of data traveling on their network the same way. "

I am in complete agreement with this statement. It is a rare occurance when the two sides of a debate can actually agree on the basic issue without a lot of rhetorical noise. I support the "government mandate" because network neutrality is best understood as a critical component of civil rights with implications for free speech as well as the right of assembly and association. The primary difference between my position and Mr. Kerpen's is that he believes, above all else, in the right to make money regaurdless of how corporate interests may intersect with the interests of individuals.

He states:

The Internet has finite capacity, and delivery of high-quality video is enormously expensive. Allowing a multiplicity of payers, where companies offering expanded services like movie downloads negotiate with Internet service providers for expedited transit, may be the best way to generate the revenue that's necessary for the Internet to continue to grow and innovate.

However, this paradigm assumes a consumer that is interested solely in searching and buying. I am not so naive as to think that Mr. Kerpen does not know about web 2.0 and it's growing ability to facilitate user generated content nor am I so naive as to think that Forbes magazine doesn't have a position here. The model that Mr. Kerpen supports is one where those that control the pipes, also control the content and are therefor able to control what we know and what we can learn, from each other. This is a completely understandable position to be coming from with in the context of Forbes Magazine. The companies that own the pipes are the same big media companies that own much of the content and these companies have a business interest in limiting the ability of other entities (corporations or individuals) from publishing any new content. It is the government's role to insert regulation where ever corporate interests conflict with the interests of individuals. In our current system, it is unfortunately a corporation's role to adopt an amoral posture in its pursuit of profit.

He states:

If prioritizing traffic is made illegal, that could deter the kind of infrastructure investments that the Internet needs to continue functioning well. The language of the broadband policy statement in the Markey bill could prevent infrastructure companies from having effective control over the data traveling across their networks. That means allowing teenagers using massive amounts of peer-to-peer bandwidth for trading stolen videogames crowding out customers who need high-quality bandwidth for video conferencing, telemedicine or other next-generation services.

I would agree with the first half of this statement if we could replace "effective control" with exclusive control. To state it plainly, it is not appropriate for telecommunications companies to have the ability to censor, filter or throttle content at their discretion. As for the Teenagers and peer to peer bit, that is, again, silly. Illegally downloading copyrighted material is bad. And, peer to peer functionality is clearly the future of the Internet. Peer to peer network structures are the best way to combat what the telcos are currently decrying as their finite capacity. I am not saying that capacity is infinite, but I am saying that the telcos are manipulating the market by imposing a false scarcity. However, a peer to peer structure relegates telcos back to a traffic cop position and knocks them off of their current "information services" pedestal.

While I don't accept the Cassandra label, it is possible that I am a bit Pollyanna in that I believe Mr. Kerpen's position to be, ultimately, futile. Forbes and Mr. Kerpen believe in the power of the corporation to advance society. I believe in the power of people. What a growing, peer to peer Internet is bringing us is the knowledge that corporations are nothing more than collections of individuals, individuals with human context that includes personal and communal relevance as well as a very real desire to succeed within the context of their job.  Successful, visionary companies understand this and are able to successfully leverage this reality.

Comments

[Eugene Chan]

The Internet most assuredly does *not* have finite capacity.

Unless, it is solely controlled by an oligarchy of companies where scarcity of bandwidth is essential to their business model.