![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Network Neutrality
Apr. 26th, 2006 11:18 amOK, so. Network Neutrality, and the possible advent of a tiered access system. I've been hearing about this for a while, but if MoveOn's wading into the fray I guess it's a big enough issue for me to write about. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you should read here (there's some definite bias in the write-up, but it's the best I have at the moment). And you shouldn't just read it because it'll enable you to understand what I'm blathering about, you should read it because it's an issue which is of vital importance to all of us as internet users, no matter what side of the issue you're on.
Me, I don't know what side I'm on.
I realize that as a good little party-line liberal I'm supposed to go "Fire bad!" when MoveOn waves its magic wand, but honestly my first reaction (when I read about this in some opinion piece somewhere) was to say "meh." Seriously, "meh." Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in the free and unrestricted flow of information in a society, since I believe that that is what leads to an informed public, and therefore to a more open and tolerant society. See, I still have my lib cred. But there's another side of the coin here. I'm not, in fact, a good little party-line liberal. I believe not only in free and unrestricted information flow, but also in a free market. And in a free market... money talks. And if money wants to buy better services, well, that's not new. This has been the case in almost every industry for quite a long time. And I'm sympathetic to the telecom companies, because I do realize that network traffic is on an astronomical upswing, and despite what we the consumer would like to think... bandwidth is far from a limitless resource.
So here's the deal: you don't want tiered access, right? You want everybody on the same access level, equivalent to telephone's common carriage laws? Amen, brother. But if you don't allow telecom companies to gather more income by offering expanded services to a subset of users, something else has to give. One option is to raise prices across the board, because that's the flip side of common carriage: common pricing. Another option is to give some (more) sort of government subsidy, or, casting our hypothetical nets further, state control.
Am I just misreading the cards? Because it seems as if this is a no-win situation. Something's going to happen that we're not going to like. The question is merely one of determining the least of the evils.
Me, I don't know what side I'm on.
I realize that as a good little party-line liberal I'm supposed to go "Fire bad!" when MoveOn waves its magic wand, but honestly my first reaction (when I read about this in some opinion piece somewhere) was to say "meh." Seriously, "meh." Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in the free and unrestricted flow of information in a society, since I believe that that is what leads to an informed public, and therefore to a more open and tolerant society. See, I still have my lib cred. But there's another side of the coin here. I'm not, in fact, a good little party-line liberal. I believe not only in free and unrestricted information flow, but also in a free market. And in a free market... money talks. And if money wants to buy better services, well, that's not new. This has been the case in almost every industry for quite a long time. And I'm sympathetic to the telecom companies, because I do realize that network traffic is on an astronomical upswing, and despite what we the consumer would like to think... bandwidth is far from a limitless resource.
So here's the deal: you don't want tiered access, right? You want everybody on the same access level, equivalent to telephone's common carriage laws? Amen, brother. But if you don't allow telecom companies to gather more income by offering expanded services to a subset of users, something else has to give. One option is to raise prices across the board, because that's the flip side of common carriage: common pricing. Another option is to give some (more) sort of government subsidy, or, casting our hypothetical nets further, state control.
Am I just misreading the cards? Because it seems as if this is a no-win situation. Something's going to happen that we're not going to like. The question is merely one of determining the least of the evils.
