The Future of American Communications (FACT) working group funded by the Media Democracy Fund released its official report on the 26th of January. The report, which carries the working group’s recommendations to President Obama, offers up some various proposals that purport to hold promise for the future of the Internet.
As the title, “…and communications for all,” suggests though, there is an underlying current of argument that Internet access is a right, and therefore should be treated as a utility (and here, and here). Internet is not a right, it is a privilege and should therefore be treated as such. In the same vein, access to information is not a right; it is a privilege. The Internet is simply a medium to connect to content and information in general. If this is a right, then should every American also be entitled to a computer? Should everyone be given Blackberries on taxpayers’ dime? These would both follow if we assume that Internet connectivity is a “right.”
FACT takes the concept of a “right” to Internet access further, also recommending that government provide training so that people know how to use a computer and access the Internet. At some point, all this gets out of hand. Just as driving isn’t a right and we don’t rely on government to subsidize our cars and train us to drive, Internet is not necessity and should not be given to us by government.
Based on the recommendation of FACT to extend broadband networks to every rural area of the United States and train members of those communities to use computers and the Internet, I would estimate that costs of the project will be roughly in the neighborhood of 1 Godzillion dollars. But at the current rate politicians are throwing government dollars at “infrastructure” projects–see the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus plan–it’s not hard to imagine a future massive broadband initiative sailing through Congress.
The biggest problem with FACT’s recommendations may be they would require all networks to offer open access (wireless networks included) and adhere to the principles of net neutrality. This means that network operators–who will carry the larger burden of the costs of constructing and maintaining these networks–would be forced to run their networks in line with government regulations, instead of in a way that the companies believe best suits consumers. Additionally, if taxpayer-funded networks were to be built in every rural area of the country, at some point government-subsidized networks would outnumber private networks, easing the passage of legislation to enforce neutrality on those networks as well.
These are free market decisions. The bottom line is that if it was in the interest of ISPs to build networks in rural areas, they would have already done so. Expansion of networks should occur as the market demands them. The Internet is not a utility and is not a right. And it is not the duty of the taxpayer to teach individuals how to use it.
Loading ...
I definitely agree that, now, Internet access and, more generally, access to information is a privilege, not a right. But, at earlier points in our national history, we regarded electricity and telephone as privileges, not rights. Now, however, these are regarded as rights and, therefore, classified as utilities.
The federal government has a storied past of transitioning household services from privileges to rights: FDR’s Rural Electrification Program and the TVA were initiated, partly, out of recognition that modern society was destined to function most efficiently with electricity and, hence, it evolved into a right. Similarly, the Universal Service Fund was initiated, first, to ensure that rural hospitals were provided with ample telecommunications technology in order that costs need not be higher in rural areas and, now, is used to establish and maintain telephone infrastructure in rural areas. That the Internet is moving in this same path is hardly surprising. Though FDR’s New Deal was bunk and I feel that the USF is, at times, needlessly interventionist, perhaps there’s a market argument to be made that the eventual transition of Internet from the realm of privilege to a “right” would lend to greater efficiency and productivity: electricity and telephone have certainly enhanced the productive capacity of the American economy and the Internet has even more potential to do the same. I’m not sure that this means the federal government should underwrite infrastructure expansion, but eventually viewing Internet access as a right rather than a privilege would seem to enhance market efficiency in the future.
The RUS, USF, and TVA have all been miserable failures. At best, these programs may have accelerated the development of electricity and phone service in rural areas at the margin, but the accompanying inefficiencies have been staggering.
Rural electrification amounts to corporate welfare and the lion’s share of its benefits are borne not by the poor but by wealthy rural-dwelling homeowners who could easily afford to pay market rates for electricity. TVA has crowded out smarter, less costly market solutions, especially as the market for electricity has matured. USF is a mismanaged slush fund plagued by severe waste and corruption.
See a pattern here? Government isn’t very good at providing private goods that involve infrastructure build-out. And even if government were somehow able to get broadband right, there’s a high chance we would end up with over-investment in rural broadband.
Resources that government pours in to broadband must be redirected from other parts of the economy. If people in rural areas wanted broadband so badly, they’d be willing to spend more for it than their urban-dwelling counterparts. But by and large, those living in rural areas don’t seem willing to spend enough on broadband to justify the cost.
Internet is not a right, it is a privilege… WTF? Isn’t that what nanny statists say about driving a car? Gee, I feel so privileged! I hope nobody takes my privileges away.
Alan, the problem is that if everything you allowed to do are rights, like getting a drivers license for instance, then you are entitled to it. How many things are you really entitled to? Rights are things that, as our Constitution says, are endowed by our Creator. Our Constitution simply lists them. It is a written record to our federal government to remind them that those are things that cannot be given, or taken away. They exist via natural law. Internet access is not endowed to us by natural law.