In dictionary world, like the one our founders lived in, the
word “regulation” means to make regular—to make sure something can happen
regularly, without blocks or interference. That’s what the founders meant by
regulating interstate commerce.
But in today’s government, regulation means something else:
governmental power to decide when, how, and whether something can happen. It’s
arguable that all government
regulation prevents, rather than provides, regularity of something happening.
So, when the president announces the need for a brand new public
utility, we know it is about government interfering and controlling what is
already happening. This week, the president’s speech on net neutrality gives us
an opportunity to compare what he says with what will actually happen if his
plan is put in place.
Here is the transcript of the minute-and-44-second announcement. I’ve highlighted portions that set my teeth on edge:
Ever since the Internet was created, it’s been organized
around basic principles of openness, fairness, and freedom. There’re no
gatekeepers deciding which sites you get to access. There’re no toll roads on
the information superhighway. This set of principles, the idea of net
neutrality, has unleashed the power of the internet and given innovators the
chance to thrive.
Abandoning these principles would threaten to end the internet as we
know it. That’s why I’m laying out a plan to keep the internet free and open. And
that’s why I’m urging the Federal Communications Commission to do everything
they can to protect net neutrality for everyone. They should make it
clear that, whether you use a computer, phone or tablet, internet providers
have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website. Cable
companies can’t decide which online stores you can shop at, or which streaming
services you can use. And they can’t let any company pay for priority over its
competitors.
To put these protections in place, I’m asking the FCC to put
these under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. In plain
English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become
an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is
theirs alone. But the public has already commented nearly 4 million
times, asking the FCC to make sure consumers, not the cable company, gets to
decide which sites they use.
Americans are making their voices heard, and standing up for
the principles that make the Internet a powerful force for change. As long as I’m
president, that’s what I’ll be fighting for too.
The second paragraph introduces a crisis: the imminent
abandonment of the principle of open internet that we agree on. Where is the
threat coming from? He doesn’t say.
I did some research. It’s complicated.
It has something to do with the
blurring of separation between mobile internet access and the more literal
connection of an at-home internet connection. It also has to do with some
services, such as Netflix, wanting faster access, so as to provide customers
the faster downloads they want.
The claim is that any differentiation is wrong; Netflix, for
example, shouldn’t be able to pay for higher streaming speeds, because that would
be a disadvantage to those not paying for those faster speeds. And there’s a
proposed fear (not really exemplified so far in real life) in which a cable
company might decide not to stream one source as fast as it streams another,
which might disadvantage certain companies.
So, up until now the internet has been open and innovative—without
government regulation to speak of. The Internet is something like the oil boom
in North Dakota—succeeding on private land, because government disallowed
drilling on public land but couldn’t control private land drilling. (The
president claimed the oil boom as a hallmark accomplishment of his presidency,
nevertheless.) The Internet is worldwide, open, and free. We pay
entrepreneurial companies to give us better and faster—and moving toward less
expensive—access to it. All of this has taken place in a free market, not
because of government encouragement or subsidy. Government should get credit
for nothing except so far staying out of the way of this example of the free
market.
So one could assume that, if there is a threat to what we
want—if a company limits our service—we will look elsewhere in the market for
alternatives. For example, in rural areas, where a cable company might try to control
access, there would be a ready market for satellite services. The market has a
way of working things out.
But the president is claiming that there’s a public outcry.
Four million requests to the FCC for net neutrality. First, the number, as of
mid-September was 3.7 million opinions. That’s around 1% of the population. Not
all were in favor, but a vast majority were. But, in the election we just had,
did it come up anywhere? Was that on the mind of the public? Did a single
official get elected because of his/her position in favor of getting government
to insert itself in controlling the Internet?
There’s a difference between being in favor of a free and
open internet and being in favor of a new regulatory agency, or relabeling the
internet as a public utility that the government can control.
Let’s explain it in terms of a highway, since “information
superhighway” is a term the president used. So, we have a freeway, with
multiple lanes. No one is limiting you, as a driver, to only certain lanes. But
someone starts a fear campaign saying, “Red cars could get special treatment;
someone could step in and make a rule that only red cars can drive in the left
lane, and they can go ten miles an hour faster than the other lanes. That’s not
fair. We need a new government agency to step in and make sure no one can set
up these special red-car lanes. We need lane neutrality!”
Our roads are free and open now. If someone tried to set up
special lanes, without making a case that the market agrees to, the market
would naturally find better ways. Setting up a new agency wouldn’t improve
things for us; it would, instead, give authority to some agency to determine
how the lanes are used. And if you give that authority away, you place the
choice on how the lanes will be used in the hands of that agency. You do the
exact opposite of protect your free lane use.
There’s a further question about the public outcry for “net
neutrality.” A look under the surface is likely to show that it’s the bigger
companies, claiming they’re thinking of the little guy, while setting up
regulations that will limit entry by new businesses—in other words, will limit
their competition.
We have seen this before. I heard Milton Friedman say this
in a speech in 1980:
[Businesses] aren’t promoting free enterprise when they ask
for handouts and regulations and controls to avoid competition.
The two greatest enemies of free society are intellectuals
and businessmen—for opposite reasons. Intellectuals want freedom for themselves
but no one else. Businessmen want free enterprise for everyone else, but
special consideration for themselves.
And, just an aside, is anyone else bothered that the
president is pushing this proposal and then stepping back and saying, since the
FCC is an independent agency (i.e., under the executive branch over which he
presides), the decision of whether to interfere with our free and open Internet
is already in their hands?
If we turn to the principles that lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization, we can see where a policy will lead. Government
must be limited to the proper role of government, as listed in the preamble to
the Constitution:
·
Establish Justice
·
Insure domestic Tranquility
·
Provide for the common defence
·
Promote the general Welfare
·
Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our Posterity
There’s nothing in there that says, “When a new technology
gets to a point that we all want it, the government should step in and make
sure everyone gets it, and makes sure it gets offered in exactly the same quality to
everyone, regardless of ability to pay.”
If people use the technology to harm one another, steal
another’s property, or in any way endanger life, liberty, or property, then the
justice role of government is already in place. If government does anything
beyond its proper role, it will cause unintended consequences. Always.
But there’s something we can predict about those unintended
consequences: they will be approximately the exact opposite of the purported
purpose of the government interference.
So, in this case, we can agree we like having a free and
open internet, and we want that to continue. If we have government step in with
the claim that we can’t have a free and open internet without it, we can be
certain the interference will mean less freedom, less openness, less
innovation. There will likely be favoritism to particular businesses or points
of view—control a tyrannical government would be especially gleeful to grab.
No comments:
Post a Comment