Interesting People mailing list archives
Network Neutrality op-ed issues
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 17:40:10 -0700
________________________________________ From: Brett Glass [brett () lariat net] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 4:10 PM To: David Farber; ip Subject: Re: Network Neutrality op-ed issues At 08:37 AM 5/11/2008, Barbara Cherry wrote:
Perhaps the fundamental problem is that many economists and legal scholars commenting on the network neutrality debate DO NOT understand the history of common carriage. Under the common law, common carriage obligations were TORT obligations imposed on carriers (in their relationship with customers) simply by virtue of their status of engaging in the business. In other words, the obligations are STATUS-BASED and unrelated to the industry's market structure.
This may be true. However, even a "common carrier" -- e.g. a bus company -- has the right to prevent abuse of its facilities, e.g. attempting to board the bus without paying or leaning out the windows while the bus is in motion. It is likewise allowed to limit the amount and type of luggage a passenger can carry. And it is allowed to set fares in a wide variety of ways ("pay one price", pay by distance, discounts for seniors or for those transferring from another bus) and to offer "premium" services (e.g. an "express" bus or train that costs more). Thus, the choking regulation of ISPs advocated by many of the fiercest "network neutrality" advocates is not appropriate even if, arguendo, ISPs are considered to be common carriers. Alas, the debates concerning the memeplex of ideas that is loosely labeled "network neutrality" have largely descended to name calling and/or competition for control of forums where one-sided messages are presented. For example, this month's Computers, Freedom, and Privacy (CFP) Conference claims to have a session on these issues which "gets beyond the slogans;" see http://www.cfp2008.org/wiki/index.php/Network_Neutrality:_Beyond_the_Slogans But if one looks at the description of the session, one sees language such as
In Washington, DC, debates over network neutrality are often not only contentious, but also unhelpful, if not dishonest.
and
Recently, we have seen major violations of network neutrality and a major FCC proceeding on network neutrality and network "management."
(Note the quotes.) In short, the description of the session itself belies the claim of a lack of bias. (This may be due to the fact that the conference's program committee includes several people -- including Free Press attorney Marvin Ammori and pro-regulation crusader Susan Crawford -- who have championed extreme views on these issues.) Not a single person who is in the business of providing Internet access is present on the conference's programming committee, nor, as best I can tell, on the panel. This "doublespeak" belies the claim that there will be a fair discussion, and also harms public perception of the conference as an objective or fair forum. The balanced perspective of Farber and Katz' op-ed is lacking here. --Brett Glass ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Network Neutrality op-ed issues David Farber (May 17)