As we discussed previously in Technocracy, the net-neutrality movement is a response to the danger of a technologically inspired and enforced system of thought crime. We concluded, in that column, that to preserve free, uncensored and unregulated access to information technology through the various portals available to us, we must have net neutrality. The alternative is a complex web of conflicting regulations enacted by the various nations from which the Internet's worldwide content is generated.
The benefits of net neutrality would seem obvious, but the topic has become increasingly contentious, splitting libertarians and conservatives alike. In what way could pursuing the goals of freedom and neutrality in fact accomplish exactly the opposite? Our first warning, as proponents of liberty, should be the fact that the Democrats forming the majority of the five-member Federal Communications Commission are only too eager to support this cause.
As Joelle Tessler reported for the Associated Press, federal regulations concerning net neutrality, which have been debated for several years now, require "that high-speed Internet providers give equal treatment to all data flowing over their networks." These are rules that "are intended to guarantee that Internet users can go to any Web site and access any online service they want." On the surface this is laudable, and in theory and concept this is desirable. But if net neutrality truly does this, why would the party of statist oppression support it?
Republicans, including Robert McDowell (who is one of the two GOP Federal Communications Commissioners), have expressed concern over meddling in yet another aspect of private enterprise and the free market. "The risk of regulation really inhibits investment," lamented McDowell in the AP article. Tessler goes on to quote Lawrence Spiwak of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Policy studies, who worries that "the FCC could hurt small, rural carriers that face higher costs to build out their systems." Without the ability to manage traffic (the very actions that net neutrality is poised to make illegal), Spiwak frets that "these companies could be forced to make expensive network upgrades they cannot afford."
The incredibly competitive wireless market, dominated increasingly by smartphones and other devices that access and manage data, may be hit hard by FCC regulations intended to establish net neutrality. Wireless networks have less capacity to serve large amounts of bandwidth, yet more and more Americans (and citizens abroad) are using wireless networks to access the Internet and transfer large quantities of data. If the government makes it illegal to manage traffic by treating different users (and different data streams) differently, it effectively hamstrings these providers in their attempts to cope with the data load.
Interestingly, as Rosalie Marshall asserted Monday, at least some of the world's biggest Internet and technology concerns support these net-neutrality regulations. Specifically, representatives from such Internet-reliant companies as Amazon, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, eBay, and even Craigslist seem to think net neutrality would benefit them. What is significant, however, is that none of these companies are primarily service providers. They are companies whose websites, or services offered through their websites, generate revenue by creating traffic rather than serving it. Certainly, such businesses would support all data streams being treated as created and delivered equally.
The unintended consequences of rules forcing Internet service providers to treat all data as equal could include ruinous constraints on network-security measures. As reported in Hands Off the Internet, certain types of security measures that prevent denial-of-service attacks (which are all too common in a world whose nations are fighting World War III in cyberspace) would be forbidden under the FCC's net-neutrality rules. Do we dare tie the hands of service providers knowing the security risks?
The Cato Institute weighed in on the issue last year, speaking of "The Durable Internet" in a policy analysis by Timothy B. Lee. In the paper, Lee states that an "important reason for the Internet's remarkable growth over the last quarter-century is the 'end-to-end' principle that networks should confine themselves to transmitting generic packets without worrying about their contents. … On a network that respects the end-to-end principle, prior approval from network owners is not needed to launch new applications, services, or content." Lee goes on to describe the net-neutrality movement and its activists as understandably concerned, but condemns government regulation as "premature," saying it would limit competition.
Nobody wants data providers to become de facto censors, deciding what their customers can and cannot access, creating classes of users who are treated differently (and perhaps poorly) based on their data needs. This is why the net-neutrality movement originally arose. But the real problem at hand here, and the one on which we must focus before we can address true net neutrality, is one of trust in government.
In a free society, governments are instituted by the citizens they serve for one purpose: to protect individual rights. If the government of the United States truly served the citizenry and protected individual liberty, the notion of federal regulations to maintain net neutrality and thus to ensure free and ready access to information (while maintaining the uninterrupted flow of data) would be a benefit to us all. Sadly, our increasingly invasive and oppressive federal government has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted. It pays lip service to the notion of freedom while constraining and controlling the actions and lives of those human beings it only pretends to protect.
Just as the euphemistically named "Fairness Doctrine" would instead crush freedom of speech on the public airwaves, any net-neutrality regulations instituted by the Marxist drones of the Obama administration cannot be trusted to accomplish their stated goals without unintended consequences. The "Fairness Doctrine" perverts fairness; Obama's idea of net neutrality may prove to be anything but neutral. Instead of trusting our government to protect individual rights, we are forced to ask ourselves in what way it might abuse them. The result is that while net neutrality is a good thing, its institution by Barack Hussein Obama and his minions almost certainly won't be.