Crawford’s substrate neutrality

Susan Crawford on net neutrality: “When [telcos and cablecos] say ‘internet’ they mean infrastructure. They mean substrate. They say they built the substrate and now own it. … But when users say ‘internet’ they mean relationships. We forget, because so many machines are involved, that the internet is a social world. Users don’t think about transport–they’re indifferent to the substrate. They care about what they do there. And what they do is create a complex adaptive system unlike any other communications network we’ve ever had before. The unpredictable ecology of the internet could never have been generated by a broadcaster or a newspaper. It’s constantly revising itself in response to the feedback it’s getting from everyone. And its value is almost wholly unrelated to the work carried out by the access valves, the gatekeepers to internet access.” She goes on to liken the current debate over ownership of networks to debates over intellectual property.

This clever distinction of “internets”–a physical on and a social one–articulates the reason why I think that net neutrality in the abstract is a good thing. That is, because I like the unpredictable and innovative results of a neutral net. However, what we have to keep in mind is that the laws being proposed to deal with net neutrality affect the first internet–the physical one that is owned property. Physical property is unlike intellectual property. Intellectual property is a temporary monopoly that exists only to give incentive to develop the store of human knowledge. This is why we can justify limiting intellectual property rights through compulsory licenses or fair use. In contrast, physical property is absolute; there is no fair use of my automobile without my permission–even if your need is great, you are a non-profit, and the result of your use will create great value. Therefore, unlike the case with IP, in the net neutrality debate we cannot simply conduct a balancing test and, if limiting an owners’ property right achieves greater social welfare, then be justified in limiting those physical property rights.

SHARE: 5 comments