The Planes, Trains and MA Bell Argument

August 16, 2010 -

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal called "The Railroad Precedent and the Web " takes the "doom and gloomers" who cried foul last week concerning Google and Verizon's recommendations to the FCC and lawmakers to task.

The editorial is penned by none other than L. Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher of The Wall Street Journal (saw the growth of the Wall Street Journal Online, according to his bio), executive vice president of Dow Jones and president of its Consumer Media Group. He is decidedly anti-net neutrality and anti-regulation.

In his opinion piece, Crovitz opens with the reactions to last week's Google-Verizon announcement:

"The pact to end the Internet as we know it," said a report on the Huffington Post. Wired's headline called Google a "net neutrality surrender monkey." The lobbying group Free Press called it "fake net neutrality." MoveOn.org called Google "just another giant corporation out to make a buck regardless of the consequences" and organized protests at the company's Silicon Valley headquarters.

The second paragraph is even more delightful, calling out games as one of those bandwidth hogging activities:

The cause of the hysteria was a statement issued last week by Google and Verizon focusing on the need for more competition instead of more regulation to support the "open Internet"—a more apt term than the loaded "net neutrality." The companies said that highly competitive wireless services, such as smart phones, should be largely unregulated. Bandwidth-hogging games and services could require added payments to Internet service providers.

Crovitz says that, because of what Google is now saying, the net neutrality arguments have run their course. He mentions the railroads and what over-regulation did to them. He closes by summoning the ghosts of 1970's airline deregulation and the FCC's handling of MA Bell to drive the point home:

The words of Alfred Kahn, who led deregulation of airlines under President Carter, should be required reading for anyone tempted by net neutrality. "When a commission is responsible for the performance of an industry," he famously wrote in "The Economics of Regulation" (1970), "it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates, to assure a desirable performance by relying on those monopolistic chosen instruments and its own controls, rather than on the unplanned and unplannable forces of competition."

This explains why an earlier generation of FCC regulators saw their role as protecting Ma Bell and its monopoly, prolonging the days of rotary dials and high consumer costs. Today's FCC should focus on increasing competition, not increasing regulation, as the better way to ensure an open Internet.

[Commentary] The new argument on net neutrality should be the old one: that those with a vested interest in broadband and wireless are probably not the best people to set policy on it. Oil companies helped soften the regulatory policies we have now to some degree and you can look to the gulf coasts of Florida and Louisiana to see how that has worked out. It should also be noted that Mr. Crovitz would be singing a different tune if ISPs like the ones he so vehemently defends decided that certain newspaper publication weren't that important compared to other publications and should go to the back of the data line. Publications, like say, the Wall Street Journal Online.


Comments

Re: The Planes, Trains and MA Bell Argument

Considering I trust the WSJ about as far as I can throw Murdoch one handed.....

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: The Planes, Trains and MA Bell Argument

He's the guy from BEFORE the Murdoch takeover, but yeah, the WSJ's bias isn't exactly new to the Murdoch era.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknameohh, gods that game is pretty, just not my style these days07/29/2015 - 11:49pm
Andrew EisenUbisoft's Child of Light.07/29/2015 - 11:45pm
MattsworknameEnjoy man, Im gonna be playing split second myself07/29/2015 - 11:45pm
Andrew EisenSorry. That just slipped out. Off to play.07/29/2015 - 11:43pm
Andrew EisenWords have meanings, people! Use the damn dictionary! They're online! They're free! Arrggghhhh!07/29/2015 - 11:42pm
Andrew EisenThis is just depressing. I'm gonna go play video games.07/29/2015 - 11:42pm
Mattsworknameproliferation of the whole "internet movment" thing, people dont debate, they try to attack and go after peole to shut them down, casue it's easier then trying to debate the issues07/29/2015 - 11:39pm
MattsworknameWhen you break it down, what it is is the shifting of the media lanscape and how it effects news sites and other groups. once upon a time, you could have run that same article and it would have created debate, not online campagns, now, cause of the07/29/2015 - 11:38pm
MattsworknameCall it waht you wil, but thats how its viewed, not just by me, but by just about EVERYONE right now. Media, new networks, they dont' want to call it what it is, soe they call it "accountability"07/29/2015 - 11:34pm
Andrew Eisen"Gamasutra... had to pay" Yes. That's EXACTLY what it was. "Accountability" is and always was horse poop.07/29/2015 - 11:29pm
MattsworknameSo to speak07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
MattsworknameThats why this happened, you get people who felt hurt, marginalize, bettrayd, or otherwise offended, and they don't actually look at teh facts, they just attack and try to get there Blood for Blood07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
Mattsworknamefalse. Weather you think the article was right or not, there was a large group who felt taht gamastura and the other media sites had to pay for there actions, weather they deserved it or not07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
Andrew EisenTrying to yank advertising over a single opinion piece on a site that I would bet money most of the offended (if you will) didn't read, is no more an attempt at accountability than the Brown shooting's subsequent riots.07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
MattsworknameMy point andrew is that it's not about them, its about the people responding to the situation. THe brown shooting was eventually shown to be completely justified, but the "Black lives matter" meme kept on rolling despite all it's intiall claims being07/29/2015 - 11:26pm
Andrew EisenDude, you're comparing an opinion piece with someone who was shot to death. Gamasutra and Alexander already were accountable for the opinion piece in question.07/29/2015 - 11:25pm
Mattsworknamekinds of events. nor has it stopped them from being asshats in my opinion, but in there view, they have to hold someone accountible for recent events, so they are doing what they think they must, even if it's based on falsehoods07/29/2015 - 11:22pm
MattsworknameAndrew: It's really a matter of context for the people involved. For example. The "Black lives matter" thing is based on an entirely false account of events in the brown shooting, but that hasnt' stopped it from triyng to hold Polititcians accountable for07/29/2015 - 11:22pm
Andrew EisenWouldn't surprise me. A lot of words' actual meanings escape many people on the internet.07/29/2015 - 11:17pm
Andrew EisenSo, "they must be held accountable" means "we must hurt them for publishing an opinion piece we don't like."07/29/2015 - 11:17pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician