Neutrality Isn’t Neutral
April 14th, 2008 by Peter SudermanSince we’re talking about net neutrality, I should point out that there are calls to extend net neutrality beyond the internet and onto things like wireless telephone networks. As I wrote last year, Columbia law prof Tim Wu has been on the forefront of this movement. Now, other groups are calling for something similar with regards to a narrow (but growing) segment of the wireless market: text messages.
Via Ars, here’s some background:
[Wireless carrier] Verizon initially declined to permit pro-choice abortion activism group NARAL to use an SMS short code for distributing opt-in messages to Verizon customers. Verizon doesn’t monitor or filter individual messages, but does reserve the right to deprive short code holders of access to its networks in cases where the company deems the content too controversial. Verizon was the only carrier to turn down NARAL, and quickly reversed the decision after receiving widespread criticism.
Tech freedom advocacy group Public Knowledge, Free Press and other groups were unsatisfied with Verizon’s turnaround and have asked the FCC to issue a clear policy position that will block Verizon from engaging in similar practices in the future.
This seems deeply problematic to me. Cell networks are privately owned and operated; they aren’t public utilities. No private organization should ever be forced to carry political speech of any kind — regardless of the message — that it’s not comfortable with.
That doesn’t mean that public pressure can’t or shouldn’t be used to push wireless carriers to open up their networks. As this case proves, that works pretty well. But the government needn’t get involved.
Neutrality ought to mean government not taking a side. But in this case, its supporters seem to think it means putting a regulatory pistol to Verizon’s head and threatening to pull the trigger.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Are the frequencies that cell networks used regulated? If so, I’m afraid you’re out of luck getting Big Brother off your back.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Yeah, I’m not buying this argument either. For one, the idea that the government is “taking a side” is kind of a dishonest gloss. The question is whether or not the Internet and its networks are public, private, or some combination of the two (much like existing phone networks). Moreover, inasmuch as there is a public interest in this question, government has a responsibility to examine the issue.
At the forefront is the impact of tiered service on small businesses. Internet-based commerce is a rather egalitarian field right now, where people who offer the best products and services get the most business, even if they’re just a small business. Since they have the same access speed as everyone else, they’re able to compete handily with the big boys. Tiered service will cripple small Internet businesses. Like to play video games online? Forget it, unless you pay for faster service, and then there’s no guarantee the server you’re connecting to can be any faster.
The telecoms will profit, though, and make more money, largely at the expense of small businesses, bloggers, small political groups like this one, etc. etc. I could go on and on, but it’s striking that none of this already occurred to you, Peter. You know as well as anyone else that small businesses drive our economy.
But then, we already know that the major telecoms have sent you guys a bunch of checks. Don’t suppose you’d like to disclose how much money you’ve gotten from the telecoms in the past years, would you?
April 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I’m not involved in the details of our fund raising efforts, so I really have no idea. I’ve only been with FW since mid 07, and I opposed neutrality regs on phones and the net before that. (See here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQzNTViMWEwODY3MmY0ZjlkNGZkN2IyN2UyYjE5N2I=)
April 16th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I want the telephone companies prosecuted for helping the Bush administration engage in illegal wiretapping on the American people.