Net neutrality

Kinsella Interview on Net Neutrality: Austrian AV Club—Mises Institute Canada

by on August 26, 2012 @ 10:34 pm · 0 comments

in IP Law, Police Statism, Statism, Technology

I was interviewed a couple weeks ago by Redmond Weissenberger, Director of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada. We had a long-ranging discussion on the issue of net neutrality, and we touched on other issues as well including various ways the state impinges on Internet freedom, such as in the name of IP (SOPA, ACTA), child pornography, terrorism, online gambling, and so on.

For background on some of the issues discussed, see my posts Net Neutrality Developments; Kinsella on This Week in Law discussing IP, Net Neutrality; Against Net Neutrality.

[C4SIF]

{ 0 comments }

An Internet Independence Day?

by on July 6, 2012 @ 9:53 am · 1 comment

in IP Law, Statism, Technology

Earlier this week Cory Doctorow linked to a new digital manifesto, yet another foggy declaration of internet freedom.  One of the more dubious points is this proclamation:

Access: Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.

By declaring this as a (philosophical) positive right, it becomes little more than a euphemism for ‘let us get taxpayers to pony up to pay for net access for everyone.’

A principled manifesto, one that removes all grey areas, taxpayer subsidies, all wiggle room for abuse — can be summed up in 24 words I came up with on the subway tonight:

Deregulate all telecommunication activity, privatize all state-owned telecom assets (publicly auctioned off), legalize telecom competition and private ownership of telecom-related property — at any and all levels, including the last-mile.

There.  Hands off the internet.  If you want to start-up a competing ISP, no government will have legal authority to interfere.  And if that is not good enough, if you want to sound verbose on your twitters, I can think of nothing more direct and explicit than what the Sultan of the fictional country of Kinakuta said in Cryptonomicon:

[T]otal freedom of information. I hereby abdicate all government power over the flow of data across and within my borders. Under no circumstances will any part of this government snoop on information flows, or use its power to in any way restrict such flows.

Incidentally Ron Paul, the one libertarian-minded politician in Congress, is also drawing up a more principled manifesto in his new crusade for internet freedom.  Paul agrees that declarations such as the one Doctorow links to are nebulous:

“The revolution is occurring around the world,” [Paul's manifesto] reads. “It is occurring in the private sector, not the public sector. It is occurring despite wrongheaded attempts by governments to micromanage markets through disastrous industrial policy. And it is driven by the Internet, the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets.”
[...]
“Internet collectivists are clever,” [Paul's] manifesto says, accusing their foes of series of Orwellian linguistic twists. “They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously push for more centralized control. ‘Openness’ means government control of privately owned infrastructure. ‘Net neutrality’ means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be ‘neutral’.”

“This is our revolution — government needs to get out of the way,” [Paul's] manifesto concludes.

While I do not necessarily endorse Paul’s manifesto either (in large part because it is pro-IP), I have argued recently elsewhere that the government (of all levels) is a key culprit standing in the way of technological progress.

Here is to hoping that efforts to further (re)nationalize the tubes will not germinate — remember, it used to be completely owned by government granted monopolies: AT&T and the NSF.  So just say no to a National Broadband Policy.

Be sure to also read “Radio Free Rothbard” (pdf) by BK Marcus, “Against Intellectual Property” (pdf) by Stephan Kinsella and The Great Firewall of Net Neutrality.

{ 1 comment }

CrunchGear vs. the Tea Party on Net Neutrality

by on August 13, 2010 @ 2:13 pm · 4 comments

in Business, Corporatism, Nanny Statism, Technology, Vulgar Politics

Yesterday, in All Your Tubes Are Belong to Googlizon, I blogged about the Google-Verizon proposal for regulating the internet and why libertarians should oppose both it and any net neutrality laws and regulations. Today, I came across a post on CrunchGear, a tech and gadgets site, by Nicholas Deleon, that criticizes the Tea Party for opposing net neutrality on the basis that it will violate the right of ISPs to free speech. I left a comment on his post, but I’ll reproduce it here.

I’m a libertarian, not a Tea Partier, but I’ll take a stab at explaining this.

Both free markets and the right to free speech are based on the right to private property. Net neutrality, insofar as it involves regulation, violates private property rights. That said, not every violation of the right to property is a violation of the right to free speech.

“But really, to expect the ISPs to do “right” by you is laughable. If it could, Comcast and the nation’s ISPs would offer 1 mbps (down, mind you) and call that SUPER FAST INTERNET, then charge you $100 per month for the privilege of using it.”

If they could? Maybe. Maybe not. But in a free market, they could not. Restrict competition through regulations, monopoly franchises, and whatnot, and then maybe they could.

“But to oppose Net Neutrality in order to defend the free speech of ISPs is pretty laughable.”

Umm… I don’t see in the letter where they defend the free speech of ISPs. I don’t see it in the quoted soundbite either. More likely the speaker was concerned about the free speech of users who could be prevented by net neutrality regulations from purchasing services that otherwise might have been available, services they could have used to express themselves more effectively.

In any case, the fundamental reason to oppose net neutrality laws or regulations is that they constitute a violation of property rights.

Then I realized I had made a small mistake, so I left a second comment:

Okay, I see that in the linked article on Radtke’s quote, the reporter writes:

“The free-speech objection to net neutrality has also gained some ground recently. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and AT&T began citing First Amendment objections to net neutrality in public discussions and in filings with the FCC this year.

“The free-speech argument holds that, by interfering with how phone and cable companies deliver Internet traffic, the government would be thwarting the free-speech rights of providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.”

This is the reporter’s interpretation, but let’s say it’s accurate. Is it not possible to imagine how net neutrality regulations could interfere with even the free speech of ISPs? And as “browse” at 1:58 pm UTC pointed out:

“The EFF has some great pieces on Net Neutrality. One of the issues is the Trojan Horse issue: whereby a more activist commissioner could abuse powers won in the aims of Net Neutrality to stifle free expression online. Even if they current FCC has no inclinations to regulate the Internet beyond Net Neutrality, regimes do change pretty frequently, and agendas change with them. If you look at it from that perspective, the argument you quoted above sounds a bit less crazy.”

In any case, as I mentioned in my previous comment, the fundamental reason to oppose net neutrality laws and regulations isn’t free speech but private property.

To wrap things up: That Nicholas finds the Tea Party’s free speech argument so laughable on its face betrays a leftist anti-corporate bias. Corporations are often not the good guys, such as when they seek government protection from competition. But at least corporations are not intrinsically evil. To turn to government as our savior, when it is government that is the primary enemy and source of man-made problems in the world, now that’s more than slightly misguided. In any event, Nicholas hardly gives the Tea Party a fair shake, focusing on their free speech argument as he does and not even bothering to give that a charitable interpretation or serious counterargument.

Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP.

{ 4 comments }

All Your Tubes Are Belong to Googlizon

by on August 12, 2010 @ 5:30 am · 6 comments

in (Austrian) Economics, Business, Corporatism, Democracy, Nanny Statism, Technology, Vulgar Politics

Googlizon with Chrome eye beam What you say!!!

There has been a lot wailing and gnashing of teeth recently over a joint announcement by Google and Verizon of a legislative-framework proposal they’ve been working on.

Now, I’ve seen this variously referred to as a backroom deal or pact, a secret treaty, or a set of regulations Google and Verizon are imposing on the internet. The FCC is shamefully abdicating its responsibility to regulate the internet! Nevermind that the D.C. Circuit court determined recently in the Comcast case that the FCC has no such regulatory authority over broadband internet; hence, the calls to disastrously reclassify broadband internet access in order to place it under the same regulatory rules as regular telephone service. Some are even intimating that Google and Verizon are trying to “own” the internet. Net neutrality activists are up in arms about this proposal, viciously attacking Google for selling out and reversing its longstanding defense of net neutrality, and calling for people to stage a silly boycott of Google products and services. If you don’t join the herd, you get labeled a Google-Verizon apologist or it is insinuated that you are on their payroll (see comments on the CNET articles linked below, for example).

So what should libertarians make of all this?

[Keep reading…]

{ 6 comments }

Net Neutrality Developments

by on April 7, 2010 @ 11:06 pm · 7 comments

in Mercantilism, Protectionism, Technology

net neutrality pictureIn recent years the “Net Neutrality” movement has gained steam. This is an effort by various statists, interventionists, do-gooders, meddlers, and techno-ignoramuses who seek to have the government forbid network providers (e.g. cable companies, telcos, and wireless carriers) from selectively blocking certain types of Internet use–for example, to require companies to give Web users equal access to all content, even if some of that content is clogging the network. Of course, as I noted on A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality, the network neutrality movement is unlibertarian. There is nothing wrong with price discrimination or with charging different prices for different levels of service. As some anti-corporatist types are only too eager to point out, without state intervention the major telcos might well not have as much monopolistic power as they currently do. But it doesn’t make much sense to urge that the state engage in further intervention to fix the problem of previous state intervention. It is state intervention that is the problem.

In the latest development on this front, as reported in U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic, cable company Comcast Corporation had challenged the F.C.C.’s authority to impose Net Neutrality rules. Last week, a federal appeals court ruled in Comcast’s favor, holding that F.C.C. regulators have limited power over Web traffic. As the article notes, “The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.”

Libertarians should not leap for joy, however. The court merely held that current federal statutes do not happen to give the F.C.C. quite enough authority to regulate Internet companies in this manner. They didn’t say it would be unconstitutional or even unwise. So all Congress has to do is pass a law. And they’re good at doing that.

Update: See my posts Kinsella on This Week in Law discussing IP, Net Neutrality; Against Net Neutrality; and Fernando Herrera-Gonzales’s articles Net Neutrality: Unwarranted Intervention and Opening the Internet — with an Axe.

{ 7 comments }