June 8, 2006
Posted by Bill Herman
Lessig, McChesney, & Net Neutrality: Richard Bennett hits below the belt
Today’s Washington Post features an impassioned op-ed by Lawrence Lessig and Robert McChesney in which they demand network neutrality now. It’s quite a good article filled with well-justified reasons that the internet as we now know it is in danger thanks to big telecom and needs rescuing by strong net neutrality provisions.
It’s well-timed. The vote will be tomorrow. Call your Representative NOW. See savetheinternet.com for more.
In his latest blog post, Richard Bennett (who claims to operate the first blog EVER) reacts to the op-ed and goes ballistic. Even in contrast to Lessig and McChesney’s tone of genuine alarm, Bennett howls with ad-hominem attacks that would make Dick Cheney blush. Examples include:
“The Washington Post gives Larry Lessig a soap box from which to spew his drivel today.”
“Fear-and-smear is what he does for a living, and this Op-Ed is a classic example.”
“These apocalyptic fantasies are appealing to conspiracy theorists…”
Bennett makes a few errors here, to say the least. First, never trust anybody who attacks the first author of a co-authored piece and never even mentions the second. This is clearly a personal axe to grind.
Second, Bennett accuses the authors (again, he mistakenly says “Lessig”) of making up their history of the internet, but history is very much on their side. Dial-up internet was itself only feasible at a cheap price to the extent that telephone companies were prohibited from surcharging (or outright banning) modem calls at a rate higher than voice calls. Until very recently, when the FCC “clarified” that these common carrier rules didn’t apply to cable modems and then decided that the rules did not apply to DSL, either, all wireline internet communication was either implicitly or explicitly required to be nondiscriminatory. As I’ve argued before, net neutrality is really just an extension of the status quo that has worked so well.
Third, Bennett insists that we should “just go look” at the comments for recent post on Lessig’s blog so that we can see Lessig being “ripped apart.” There’s some disagreement there–several posters support neutrality, and several oppose. But Bennett should not be trying to enhance his credibility by referring people to that comments section. The first “rip” on Lessig is Bennett’s:
“Lessig, you’re a fool.”
How eloquent. The first person to get ripped in this thread is Bennett, when a poster who also opposes network neutrality legislation ironically thanks Bennett for his “clever way to start [his] argument” and tells him to “knock it off.”
Richard Bennett may or may not have the first blog, but he certainly does not have the most well-reasoned.
Update: The House vote went very badly. No shock: Verizon execs are all smiles.
Update 2: I looked into Bennett’s claim of writing the “original” blog, and it’s total poppycock. Bennett started in July, 1996. Justin Hall kept an online diary as far back as 1994, a fact celebrated when he quit last year, and several others were doing the same well before 1996.
If I wanted to stoop to Bennett’s level and drop an ad hom, I might urge the reader to ignore the work of anybody who makes a verifiably untrue claim at the top of his own blog. Yet some of his arguments are occasionally worth reading, regardless of who wrote them.
2 Trackbacks
2 Comments
June 8, 2006
Here’s part of the so-called “net neutrality” text that Lessig and his pals are trying to pass that I find most objectionable:
“If a broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin or ownership of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.”
Now tell me where in the history of common carrier law there has been such a provision. Transportation companies are governed by common carrier, but FedEx can charge more for an overnight letter than for three-day service. Is this a violation of your free speech rights?
The Internet has, from its earliest days, recognized the fact that applications have different needs from the network, and that satisfying these needs may have economic consequences. There is an “M” bit in the IP header that says “pick the cheapest route.”
If Lessig has his way, the Internet will be required by law to suck at delivering VoIP and IPTV, and will remain super-friendly to Nigerian dictators, phishers, DDOS attackers, and pedophiles. If this is your vision of Democracy, by all means pick up your old circuit-switched phone and implore your Congressman to criminalize technical improvement of the Internet’s infrastructure.
It’s your duty.
June 13, 2006
I must say, Richard, that this comment is actually free of personal assaults and red herrings. Congratulations on reducing your fallacy quotient. Of course, there are still fallacies to work through here, but at least you’ve been civil on our blog, so thank you.
The analogy with FedEx is easily turned. Imagine a FedEx driver coming to your door with a package and demanding that you pay to receive your package. After all, if a driver thinks you really value a package, he could probably get a few extra bucks out of you. This is even though the sender has already paid. Surely this is extortion.
This Tony Soprano business model is exactly what Verizon would like to use. In this case, though, both the sender and the receiver have already paid their network providers. The major broadband companies seek to charge a THIRD fee in order to “protect” the quality of service. What’s the non-euphemistic word for “protection”? That’s right: extortion.
If FedEx started doing this, they’d lose out to DHL or UPS or the Postal Service. The package delivery market is fairly competitive and highly contestable. But 2 or fewer providers control the lion’s share of the broadband market in nearly every US ZIP code. Further, thanks to the economics of “sunk costs,” broadband will likely never be competitive. If left unregulated, noncompetitive businesses always find innovative ways to charge more than a competitive market would allow. The law should not allow broadband companies to charge anybody for the “protection” of their data packets.
Further, nobody’s insinuating or demanding that nobody pay more for better service. I’m on the cheap plan with Verizon because I’m poor, I don’t download that much, and I don’t need that much speed. I couldn’t get good streaming video right now if I tried, but if I want it, I’ll pay for it. If I want FiOS or my own T-1 line, I’ll pay even more. So the “overnight v. 3 day rate” analogy still applies to a neutral internet. Those who oppose net neutrality really want to give the FedEx driver the right to impose additional “protection” fees, based upon his estimation of how much you value your package. Why? JUST BECAUSE HE CAN.
Additionally, all this economics discourse ignores the threat of a major shift in the communications model of the internet. Now, everyone can talk to everyone on the internet. This many-to-many model has literally revolutionized mass communication. But if neutrality becomes a thing of the past (again, it’s been the legal status quo until very recently, and telcos are only behaving until the legislative fight is over), we’ll go backwards toward the cable TV model. Next-generation internet communication will be reserved for the most well-funded communicators, a damned shame that will end the relative equity of online communication.
But who really needs a near-infinite plethora of communicators when we can have a slightly niftier television for the few thousand with the most capital?
Leave a comment