It is aggravating and bewildering to observe the contemptible, mainstream analysis that surrounds network neutrality. It is even more painful to sit and watch as people claim some sort of "right" to the infrastructure through which the Internet is transmitted.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention to this matter: "The issue in a nutshell," says Tim Swanson in a May 2006 article for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is that "Internet service providers such as AT&T have mentioned that they may charge variable prices for different types of traffic that move throughout their infrastructure." Increasing prices is an inevitable effort to finance necessary, though expensive, infrastructure upgrades - such as fiber optic rollout.

In the frenzy for "net neutrality," critics of the varying prices have raised two central arguments, one economic and one moral. The economic argument rails against monopolistic dominance of "little guy" content providers, and the moral argument demands a right to the "free" and equal distribution of Internet access. However, underneath all the socialistic fluff and statist chicanery, these arguments are hardly valid.

The economic argument deno-unces corporate-proposed prices as a false cover for profit-seeking schemes designed by companies such as AT&T, which possess a dominant market power in the realm of Internet and communications services. Critics argue that these companies will use their market power to essentially squeeze out the "little-guy" content providers.

But this argument, in its relation to varying prices, is not a true assessment for any dominant firm - particularly a monopoly or oligopoly that is concerned with profit maximization. Monopolies and oligopolies are not omnipotent. They cannot raise prices to any arbitrary amount without the risk of losing some business from those who cannot afford high prices.

If the criterion is profit maximization, corporations, under varying prices, will actually strive to set lower prices for those who are unwilling or unable to sustain business at high prices, and charge high prices for those who are willing and able to pay them. The low prices for these "little guys" would increase the total quantity of Internet service demanded by the content providers, and thus raise total revenue and possible maximum profits for service providers.

The only ones who would feel the burden of varying price increases would be large content providers, such as Google, Yahoo and Amazon, who greatly contribute to the traffic on the Internet. The much larger content providers can afford the increase in prices, even if they would prefer otherwise. It is no surprise then, says Swanson, that "content providers such as Amazon, Microsoft, Google and others have been lobbying Congress to prevent this from occurring under a scheme called network neutrality."

The net neutrality argument isn't really a "little guy" movement, but a corporate protectionist measure on behalf of those like Google and Amazon. If economic prosperity in the Internet service industry is our goal, then we should not hinder Internet service providers from demanding varying prices from different content providers to finance important and necessary upgrades to the Internet infrastructure.

The moral argument cites past government policies towards communication industries and our first amendment right to free speech. It claims that we the people own the Internet infrastructure as a vestige of democracy.

Proponents of net neutrality would like you to think that large service providers had nothing to do with inventing our modern Internet, but this notion isn't true. Even though explorations into the Internet began at major academic universities for the purpose of research, it is highly unlikely that private companies would never have entered into the market of Internet services. Companies eventually moved into the Internet communications market, albeit backed by government protectionism through such policies as the Communications Act of 1934.

Proponents of net neutrality claim that, because Internet corporations rose largely because of the benign support of Leviathan, funded by your tax dollars, it therefore belongs to you, the public. But despite the fact that taxpayer dollars were extorted to subsidize and foster the growth of these giant communication corporations, one can neither blame the corporations for this protection nor hold any legal claim on the accumulated property incurred by them because of these protections.

Can I cast blame on every single University student who receives federal financial aid, and make claim on their incurred property because of their subsidized education? No. Instead, we should be looking for ways to completely deregulate the Internet industry by severely limiting - if not cutting off - the power of Leviathan.

Additionally, free speech is a negative right that states that the government cannot infringe upon any individual's expression of ideas. It is not a positive right, which would state that individuals must be provided with a means to expressing their ideas.

As the philosopher Ayn Rand put it, "The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas."

I can only hope that, by approaching this issue in a better light, we can formulate some new ideas by which to resolve this recurring problem, instead of resulting to the worn-out, statist socialistic approaches of regulation.

Gordon is a physics sophomore.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools