[IP] Network Neutrality op-ed issues

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
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


-------------------------------------------