Author(s)
Susan Crawford
Source
Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 159, 2006
Summary
This paper looks at common arguments against net neutrality.
Policy Relevance
Because of the public benefits of the Internet and public contributions to its value, the public interest in continued access is more important than carriers' rights to exert control.
Main Points
- Telephone companies argue that because they invested billions in building networks, they should be entitled to treat some content differently from other content. Companies that make music and movies make similar claims to discourage content sharing online.
- Favored content could be tagged so the network could give it priority.
- Most of the value of the Internet comes from the people who use it. New theories are needed to appreciate the value of open interactive networks.
- Telephone and cable companies have benefitted from subsidies in building the Internet, so their claims of ownership are misleading.
- Access to the public benefit of the Internet is more important than protecting the property rights of the telephone companies.
- We cannot predict what would result from giving network carriers more control over content. Many users do not trust assurances that carriers will not abuse their power. Some businesses might never have the opportunity to develop.
- The public trust doctrine is used to regulate private ownership of beachfront property. The common interest in some resources takes precedent over private use. The benefits of the Internet are similar to those of the sea. It is hard to say who owns it.
- Regulation of the Internet would not be considered a “taking” of private property, any more than regulation electrical or phone networks.
- Private networks would still be allowed. On the Internet, broadband providers may need to be required not to prioritize any packets, and not to make special arrangements with any subset of internet resources.
