"Copyright is Dead"
Quite an interesting blog entry about and net neutrality. Paul Sweeting summarizes various views espoused by academic economists during a video policy symposium. Some highlights:
"Copyright is a very big issue in the legal world today, but in the business world, when you talk to consumers about protecting copyrights, it's a dead issue," he said. "It's gone. If you have a business model based on copyright, forget it."
According to Faulhaber, the "world of open piracy," created by digital technology will always thwart content owners seeking to leverage the monopoly granted to them by copyright law.
Though today the iTunes/Amazon model seems to be the more popular one, commentators said that a better business model would be one where content providers would "hook up with the conduit guys." Monetizing the content would presumably be easier because providers can control its distribution.
Finally, because the bandwidth required for high quality video is not yet cheap, providers are seeking to economize that scarce resource through traffic shaping or network management. Wharton professor Gerry Faulhaber has said that regulating or prohibiting traffic shaping would make things worse: "Regulating traffic shaping will reduce available capacity. If demand exceeds supply, total throughput on a network declines, sometimes to zero."
Comments (9)
I continue to be amazed at libertarians who are in favor of Net Neutrality. I even know a radical anarcho-capitalist economist who argues for it. Bizarre. Why espouse individual liberty in every aspect of life, but then demand government enforced collectivism for the internet?
The technology can already deal with abusive network companies. Routing protocols seek the cheapest route between two points. If one node is too expensive to use, the net routes around it. Routes are a tradeoff of distance, bandwidth and price.
Published: March 22, 2008 12:45 PM
I figured a long time ago that the internet was a "commons" of sorts and that it would eventually be 'fenced off' and privatized. I'm suprised it's not happening faster, but I don't see how it can be avoided permanently.
Published: March 22, 2008 7:19 PM
You can't fence off the internet any more than you can fence off a stock or commodity exchange (as we're finding out now that companies are moving offshore to avoid Sarbanes-Oxley)
The internet is based on exchange of packets, not ownership of pipes. Putting a premium on certain kinds of packets is a model doomed to failure as more pipes are laid, cutting the price of 'generic' packets further. The only reason this is even an issue is due to anti-trust legislation which restricts competition for the last mile. Piling on more regulations will only make the entire US market less favorable, especially given the global nature of the internet and the market economy in general. Why serve packets or customers in a country with such regulations? Google and the ISPs are incredibly short-sighted on this issue (well, I guess not incredibly).
Published: March 23, 2008 6:12 PM
I am in favor of net neutrality only because of the current lack of choice, especially when it comes to "broadband" ISPs. Net neutrality would not be an issue in a truly free market. Competition would help to keep things fair without resorting to more regulation.
This is really just another case of regulation causing a cry for MORE regulation. The real solution would be to remove the regulatory barriers that favor the existing phone and cable companies.
Published: March 23, 2008 11:36 PM
Personally, I don't think any federal level (let alone worldwide) regulation of the internet is warranted. What should be done to ensure that power over the medium doesn't get excessively concentrated in the hands of a few is local in nature.
People, via their local governments (or other institutions or practices?) ought to require that, if a given company is going to have a monopoly on the rights of way (which is inevitable with land lines, at least at the "last mile" level), ought to insist that the companies in monopoly positions (even if over only individual neighborhoods) allow significant freedom of access. That last mile monopoly might even be tapped for local government revenue, a form of "land value taxation."
So long as there is sufficient diversity of control over various local networks, the national network would remain free. Even if some localities allowed censorship of content, preferential treatment for certain kinds of customers, or other restrictions on access, the multiplicity of possible long distance pathways would be the reality faced by the people of the country as a whole.
Published: March 24, 2008 12:00 AM
Personally, I don't think any federal level (let alone worldwide) regulation of the internet is warranted. What should be done to ensure that power over the medium doesn't get excessively concentrated in the hands of a few is local in nature.
People, via their local governments (or other institutions or practices?) ought to require that, if a given company is going to have a monopoly on the rights of way (which is inevitable with land lines, at least at the "last mile" level), ought to insist that the companies in monopoly positions (even if over only individual neighborhoods) allow significant freedom of access. That last mile monopoly might even be tapped for local government revenue, a form of "land value taxation."
So long as there is sufficient diversity of control over various local networks, the national network would remain free. Even if some localities allowed censorship of content, preferential treatment for certain kinds of customers, or other restrictions on access, the multiplicity of possible long distance pathways would be the reality faced by the people of the country as a whole.
Published: March 24, 2008 12:02 AM
No, no, no. Not only should there be no federal regulation, there should be no local government regulation either. No company can have a total monopoly, even over the "last mile". Monopolies are NOT inevitable because the free-market (that is one where there is NO regulation) will always find a solution, even though it may not be readily apparent to those who wish to use the coercive powers of government to intervene on their behalf. New solutions can always be found. But allowing the government to put a toe in the door, even if it's by a seemingly innocuous local government, will inevitably lead to greater and greater levels of intervention to correct the ever expanding "deficiencies" created by previous interventions. Don't let any level of government regulate the internet.
Published: March 24, 2008 12:41 AM
You're absolutely right. Did you know that power lines are capable of carrying data? That cable lines can carry phone service and phone lines can carry cable service? If you're going to argue that "last mile" monopoly is inevitable, why aren't cable, phone, internet and power services all handled by a single local monopoly?
In some parts of the country, cable companies actually overbuild, and consumers get to choose between two providers. The only reason these overbuilds are not more common is that local governments usually grant monopoly privilege in exchange for license fees and other juicy tidbits.
Published: March 24, 2008 8:50 AM
The failures of regulation are not answered by yet more regulation.
Arguing for forced "net neutrality" is an oxymoron. The use of force is, in of itself, not neutral.
Published: March 26, 2008 11:56 AM