Net Neutrality and the censorship concern
September 27, 2007
Here’s another example of why we need net neutrality regulations: Verizon has refused to let Naral Pro-Choice America set up an opt-in text messaging program used by other political and commercial operations because it finds Naral’s program “ controversial or unsavory.”
Once again, major carriers are insisting that eliminating net neutrality requirements is an expansion of freedom. But, like here — where common carrier laws are apparently not applicable — that “freedom” gives monopolistic companies government-like authority to censor.
Now, if we really had an open market I’d be able to get mad and switch cell phone carriers. But I have a contract with Verizon which forces me to either stay in the contract or pay hefty fines. A contract which Verizon will happily use the regulatory powers of the government over me to enforce, by the way. And because the barriers to entry for new cell-phone companies remain high, thanks again to regulation by the Federal Government, there are very few companies for me to choose from and all of them demand the same kind of abusive lock-in contract.
So. Free market my ass. The cell phone company’s market share is protected by the government, their business model is protected and enforced by the government, and now they want the government to grant them the right to control what information I have access to. How is that a good deal for me?
Posted in Politics, Technology
content rss
September 27th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Looks like Verizon just reversed this decision…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27cnd-verizon.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
September 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
That’s good to hear. But I still don’t like the idea that the only thing that stands between us and censorship by monopolistic communications companies is their “great respect for this free flow of ideas.”
There either needs to be true competition or government regulation that restricts the use of their market dominance and control of infrastructure to silence political opponents.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:50 am
A couple of things:
First, you signed the contract. If you don’t like its terms at the time, then don’t sign it. If you don’t like its terms now, then tough luck! If we had the ability to break contracts whenever we like, just because the partner did something we dislike, then contracts wouldn’t be of much value - termination-with-notice clauses notwithstanding. The Open Market allows you to make that choice, or choose between others who don’t require contracts. I hear Virgin Mobile does just that!
Second, the regulations that make it so difficult for a new mobile carrier to start service include those related to safety for phone signals and towers, EM non-interference requirements, 911 service, number portability, mandatory free-trial periods, and a host of other Good Things that keep mobile phones safe and functional. Sure, there’s probably a bunch of dreck in there, but let’s try to filter out the chaff before getting angry. Though the market might not be totally Free, remember Ralph Nader’s retort when the automobile manufacturers pulled the “Free Market” card during the fight for seatbelt laws: “Sure, you’re free. You’re free to go through the windshield.” (not an exact quote)
September 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Brian, the primary problem with the contracts is that they are anti-competitive. They are designed to be anti-competitive, and their purpose is to make it more difficult for customers to respond to better pricing elsewhere or poor service here. Almost all cell phone providers require these contracts, so the choice is between having a cell phone and an onerous contract and not having a cell phone at all.
Regardless, they still use government authority and government laws to force compliance with those contracts, and that’s not an “Open Market.”
Verizon in particular gets a lot of customers in the DC area (like us) because they are the only cell phone carrier that provides service in Metro. That’s a government-sponsored anti-competitive contract, more government protection of the marketplace.
I tend to agree with you on regulation, but my point is this: the market is neither free nor open. In fact, there’s a lot of government regulation that works in favor of very large providers and intentionally restricts consumer choice, making large providers immune to the pressures of market forces and/or the boycott that’s supposed to serve as the check on corporate power in a democracy. No one has the right to scream “free the market” unless they want it truly free — including getting rid of the government laws and props that support the business models of large firms.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The concept of a “Free Market” is an extreme ideal, and almost never exists - if for no other reason than that it is ill-defined. The Free Market rhetoric of the U.S. is flimsy, and doesn’t stand against more than a cursory investigation into our actual economic practices. That’s not to say, however, that we’re not Mostly Free, or Free Enough to be worthwhile. I think we agree Enough, here, so let’s move on.
I’m really curious why you think the government’s authority to enforce contracts is not permissible under any definition of an Open Market. My (admittedly limited) understanding of economics tells me that enforceable contracts are perhaps the most fundamental cornerstone of any real free market system, idealized or otherwise. You’ve agreed to a reduced rate on your contract in exchange for a long-term commitment to their services. That’s not anti-competitive (in a bad sense), that’s just reasonable bargaining. If you don’t want to make that commitment, then almost every provider I’ve ever talked to will sell you service month-to-month - it just costs more. And some businesses (again, Boost and Virgin come to mind) even make that a highlight of their marketing.
And as for Verizon in the Metro, that’s a nasty grey area. Metro is one of those pseudo-government agencies, are massively underfunded, and made a contract as a way to make some cash. The USPS took the same flak when the put FedEx drop boxes on their property. I’m not sure how I think here, but I do know that the Verizon-Metro-Monoploy will be over soon. They announced they’re putting in more providers Real Soon Now.
I’m not going to argue with you that the government doesn’t or should inappropriately shield certain businesses and markets. However, I think you’ve picked a bad target (the mobile phone industry), and a bad example (their lock-in contracts). Mobile phones have seen some of the fiercest competition of *any* consumer market in the last decade. I pay the same now for four and five times as many minutes, not to mention the other snazzy features, with better coverage, better phones, and more compatibility, than I did when I first got a phone in 2000. There are more providers than ever, and even smaller, niche-market ones. And in that time, there has been only one major merger: The AT&T Wireless buyout by Cingular. Seems pretty vibrant to me.
September 28th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Regardless of ones opinion on the “Free Market” and cellular contracts, the point remains that the line between “free speech” and “free speech for everything that is not controversial or unsavory” is very narrow and could change at any moment. The trouble with all of this stuff that we take for granted: an open internet, the right to publish any writings you want, make a film on any subject… Only exist as long as the government allows them. Net Neutrality is important… To write into law the freedom of the internet is the best way to ensure that this network that we have come to rely so heavily on in such a short time will exist for many more years in its “anyone can put anything out there” form. The media would love to see it turned into a big TV system where everything is commercialized and controlled towards maximized profits, but I don’t think that any users want to see that happen.
The same issues for text messaging are also out there for the Internet and all other media. Having companies (that are bascially utilities) censor what they think is offensive is a dangerous direction to head in and with their goals of making the Internet (well, making everything, actually) a profit line, they will continue to strive for as much control over access and content as they can.
Oh and, I wouldn’t be to sure about this: “…Things that keep mobile phones safe”. I don’t think these things have really been seriously studied enough to determine the long term (as in multi-decade) effects of bascially everyone in the world (especially children) holding microwave transmitters next to their heads for hours a day. But maybe I’m just paranoid.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Brian, it’s probably my fault for being less clear. The market may be open — somewhat — but it’s not free. It’s not free for companies, who must submit to regulation, and it’s not free for consumers, who also must submit to regulation. So when cell phone carriers and Internet infrastructure providers holler about “deregulation” and “freedom” — as though those were ideals they are committed to and are obviously fair on their face — we have to remember that they benefit from regulating us, and the government’s enforcement of those regulations, as well. They only care about their own freedom, but they’ll do what they can get away with restricting that as much as possible.
So I’m not inclined to hand over Net Neutrality; deregulation does not always equal more freedom.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:16 am
And there we agree, Thud. We’re definitely just arguing over a particular instance. The irony is that when most people say, “Free Market”, what they really mean is “Fair Market”. A Free market quite often turns out not to be Fair, as it tends to produce monopolies capable of manipulating the situation to their own future advantage. There is a myriad of governmental regulations designed to level the field, with the SEC perhaps being the most obvious example.
But enough of that. Here’s a point that I think is often missed in this whole “neutrality” debate: We actually have *more* ground to stand on in demanding neutral carrier regulations from the mobile phone carriers and TV broadcasters because of the publicly owned airwaves they lease from us. Since this is fundamentally a public resource, we can demand neutrality as a condition of the contract. We have less wiggle room with respect to the Internet and cable television networks, because those networks are mostly, if not entirely, privately owned.
Now, we as a society can still pass laws forcing them to be neutral, because of the special nature of those systems; but it seems to me the “Free Speech” argument actually works in *their* favor in these cases. That is, what right does the government have to force a privately owned system to carry content to which it objects? If you sell ad space on a billboard in your front yard, and an organization to which you object wants to place a distasteful sign on it, you have every right to turn them down for any reason you choose, other than those explicitly forbidden by anti-discrimination laws.
For the record, I am very much pro-neutrality. The common utility of the medium trumps the free speech and private property issues.
And at this point, I’m just grouchy and ranting.