Antitrust Lemons Yield Net Neutrality Lemonade
---
I have nothing but contempt for the FCC commissioners who have been blocking the merger of AT&T and BellSouth for political reasons (but remember, they're "dedicated public servants"). Antitrust laws are used by bureaucrats to protect competitors, not competition. And the FCC — probably the most socialist*, definitely the most partisan, and generally the all-around dumbest federal regulatory agency in Washington — should be the last group allowed to wield antitrust power.
But look on the bright side:
As for a libertarian analysis, I consider the issue ambiguous at best. Yes the telecom and cable companies "own their pipe," but the only reason they own it is because of the infrastructure head start (i.e., the government-granted momentum) that they had as a result of existing for decades as government-chartered monopolies.
If the government gives you, as a monopolist, free land, or free cars, or free paper clips year after year, then suddenly says "no more free land, or free cars, or free paper clips for you," then you may no longer be a monopolist, but you still have the land or the cars or the paper clips — and you therefore also have an unfair, government-created advantage over any new entrants, even in the subsequent deregulated environment.
So too with the "series of tubes." The "pipe-owners" are where they are at least in part because of prior government intervention in their favor, and for better or worse the government is still entitled, perhaps even obligated, to attach strings to "their" pipe.**
That does not mean, however, that net neutrality should have come from the hack partisan bureaucrats at the FCC. It should have come from Congress, after public discussion and due deliberation.
In government, every silver lining has a cloud.
---
*At least now that we are rid of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission.
**This was also essentially my argument defending so-called "a la carte" pricing of cable television, another policy that some libertarians took umbrage with, on the (incomplete) reasoning that "they own their pipe." Unlike net neutrality, "a la carte" died a quiet death at the FCC.
But look on the bright side:
AT&T has offered concessions beyond what it had promised in October, including a significant pledge to observe standards regarding network neutrality — basically, equal treatment for all Internet traffic. This issue appeared to be the biggest roadblock to a deal.I support net neutrality strictly on consequentialist grounds: net neutrality is like the cell phone industry; anti-neutrality is like cable television — which has the better track record over the past 30 years in terms of quality, pricing and innovation? It's a no-brainer.
As for a libertarian analysis, I consider the issue ambiguous at best. Yes the telecom and cable companies "own their pipe," but the only reason they own it is because of the infrastructure head start (i.e., the government-granted momentum) that they had as a result of existing for decades as government-chartered monopolies.
If the government gives you, as a monopolist, free land, or free cars, or free paper clips year after year, then suddenly says "no more free land, or free cars, or free paper clips for you," then you may no longer be a monopolist, but you still have the land or the cars or the paper clips — and you therefore also have an unfair, government-created advantage over any new entrants, even in the subsequent deregulated environment.
So too with the "series of tubes." The "pipe-owners" are where they are at least in part because of prior government intervention in their favor, and for better or worse the government is still entitled, perhaps even obligated, to attach strings to "their" pipe.**
That does not mean, however, that net neutrality should have come from the hack partisan bureaucrats at the FCC. It should have come from Congress, after public discussion and due deliberation.
In government, every silver lining has a cloud.
---
*At least now that we are rid of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission.
**This was also essentially my argument defending so-called "a la carte" pricing of cable television, another policy that some libertarians took umbrage with, on the (incomplete) reasoning that "they own their pipe." Unlike net neutrality, "a la carte" died a quiet death at the FCC.
Related Posts (on one page):
- "Comment Left Elsewhere" of the Day
- Antitrust Lemons Yield Net Neutrality Lemonade
- The "eBay - Google Checkout - Net Neutrality" Canard
- More on Net Neutrality
- Google May Redeem Itself With China Reversal
Posted by Kip on
29 December 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.