Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Brett
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Specifics Needed on Network Neutrality on The Technology Liberation Front
Of course, send it along!
1 year ago
in Schools are not Infrastructure on The Technology Liberation Front
Tim and EF,
As EF explains, schools can meet the criteria. In your response to EF, Tim, you focus only on the second and third criteria when you refer to "food, housing, health care, computers, washers and dryers." But those do not all satisfy the first criterion. The basic idea (elaborated in much more detail in various papers) is that the first criterion isolates those resources that are potentially sharable at low (or at least manageable) marginal cost and the latter criteria further narrow the subset to focus on those resources for which a commons (nondiscrimination) regime *may* be attractive.
Tim, as I noted in my comment to the next post, "infrastructure" does not mean publicly provided, at least not in my work. And as you note at the end, I do not really get involved into the debate over public vs. private schools.
EF, I view infrastructure as a resource and I view commons as a resource management regime, and I seek to understand when and how we should manage different infrastructure as commons. So I think your intuition heads in the direction I'm heading.
Brett
As EF explains, schools can meet the criteria. In your response to EF, Tim, you focus only on the second and third criteria when you refer to "food, housing, health care, computers, washers and dryers." But those do not all satisfy the first criterion. The basic idea (elaborated in much more detail in various papers) is that the first criterion isolates those resources that are potentially sharable at low (or at least manageable) marginal cost and the latter criteria further narrow the subset to focus on those resources for which a commons (nondiscrimination) regime *may* be attractive.
Tim, as I noted in my comment to the next post, "infrastructure" does not mean publicly provided, at least not in my work. And as you note at the end, I do not really get involved into the debate over public vs. private schools.
EF, I view infrastructure as a resource and I view commons as a resource management regime, and I seek to understand when and how we should manage different infrastructure as commons. So I think your intuition heads in the direction I'm heading.
Brett
1 year ago
in Specifics Needed on Network Neutrality on The Technology Liberation Front
Tim,
I appreciate your comments and critique. A few quick reactions. First, the article you focused on is really aimed at developing a better understanding of the benefits of nondiscriminatory public access to "infrastructure" generally. The article was not motivated by or focused especially on the network neutrality debate, and the points made in Part IV are aimed at better articulating the benefits on nondiscrimination in the Internet context; some of the basic points that I hoped to add to the debate were that the social benefits from nondiscriminatory access to and use of the Internet go much further than supporting the emergence of new applications and content (though such benefits are important) and that competition theory alone doesn't capture the full range of economic (much less social) issues--that is, there are market failures associated with infrastructure-dependent public and nonmarket goods that even competition doesn't solve, and a lack of competition may worsen. I have since written another paper with Barbara van Schewick that aims more directly at network neutrality (and Chris Yoo's work in particular) -- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract.... Which brings me to the next point I should make. I do not claim to have fully articulated the path toward a fully prioritized Net, and I hope you are right that networks lack the power to prioritize packet delivery according to user/use. As Barbara and I discuss, the technology exists and the incentives to prioritize (discriminate) exist, and so I am not quite sure what (other than the potential threat of regulation) you think is keeping or will keep networks in check. Competition? I should also note that my concern is not that the Internet will become proprietary; it already is for the most part. My concern is with discrimination among packets on the basis of user or use. Though that is my concern, I explicitly acknowledge that there are tradeoffs involved and that such discrimination is rational from the perspective of network owners. Generally speaking, I think most of the problems network owners claim discrimination would solve can be solved via nondiscriminatory means (e.g., congestion pricing can be implemented in a manner that does not set prices or otherwise prioritize delivery based on the user or use). Of course, there are limits and thus tradeoffs. I hope my work is sufficiently candid about these issues.
You suggest that I support regulation that would be incoherent. If I were to champion a rule, I suppose I would propose a pretty simple rule: no discrimination on the basis of user or use. This is obviously a very strong rule, probably much stronger than most NN advocates would support. It doesn't distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable discrimination. Anyway, I haven't spent a considerable amount of time crafting rules and trying to generate regulation.
It is interesting that both you and Lessig (in his Reply to my paper that was also published in the Minn. Law Review) call for more specificity on my part in dealing with the NN debate. I think you both were correct. Hopefully, some of my later work adds some more details.
More generally, I do not think that "infrastructure" necessarily means government provided or regulated, but it does often mean that markets may fail for a variety of reasons, many of which I talk about in the paper. My focus is primarily on the demand side -- why does society demand infrastructure? how does infrastructure generate value? etc. -- and not the supply side, which means that I do not reach firm policy conclusions (I think I am pretty explicit about that). I also attempt to explain the advantages of managing certain infrastructure as a "commons," by which I mean access and use made available to the relevant community (usually the public for most infrastructure) on a nondiscriminatory basis. A point that may resonate with libertarians, I suppose, is that managing infrastructure as a commons avoids relying on infrastructure providers or the government to make decisions about the types of users or uses (or downstream markets) that are worthy of priority. It is a rather complicated point for a blog post/comment, so I'll leave it at that and just point to the article for details.
OK, a few quick thoughts rambles into too much. my apologies.
Brett
I appreciate your comments and critique. A few quick reactions. First, the article you focused on is really aimed at developing a better understanding of the benefits of nondiscriminatory public access to "infrastructure" generally. The article was not motivated by or focused especially on the network neutrality debate, and the points made in Part IV are aimed at better articulating the benefits on nondiscrimination in the Internet context; some of the basic points that I hoped to add to the debate were that the social benefits from nondiscriminatory access to and use of the Internet go much further than supporting the emergence of new applications and content (though such benefits are important) and that competition theory alone doesn't capture the full range of economic (much less social) issues--that is, there are market failures associated with infrastructure-dependent public and nonmarket goods that even competition doesn't solve, and a lack of competition may worsen. I have since written another paper with Barbara van Schewick that aims more directly at network neutrality (and Chris Yoo's work in particular) -- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract.... Which brings me to the next point I should make. I do not claim to have fully articulated the path toward a fully prioritized Net, and I hope you are right that networks lack the power to prioritize packet delivery according to user/use. As Barbara and I discuss, the technology exists and the incentives to prioritize (discriminate) exist, and so I am not quite sure what (other than the potential threat of regulation) you think is keeping or will keep networks in check. Competition? I should also note that my concern is not that the Internet will become proprietary; it already is for the most part. My concern is with discrimination among packets on the basis of user or use. Though that is my concern, I explicitly acknowledge that there are tradeoffs involved and that such discrimination is rational from the perspective of network owners. Generally speaking, I think most of the problems network owners claim discrimination would solve can be solved via nondiscriminatory means (e.g., congestion pricing can be implemented in a manner that does not set prices or otherwise prioritize delivery based on the user or use). Of course, there are limits and thus tradeoffs. I hope my work is sufficiently candid about these issues.
You suggest that I support regulation that would be incoherent. If I were to champion a rule, I suppose I would propose a pretty simple rule: no discrimination on the basis of user or use. This is obviously a very strong rule, probably much stronger than most NN advocates would support. It doesn't distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable discrimination. Anyway, I haven't spent a considerable amount of time crafting rules and trying to generate regulation.
It is interesting that both you and Lessig (in his Reply to my paper that was also published in the Minn. Law Review) call for more specificity on my part in dealing with the NN debate. I think you both were correct. Hopefully, some of my later work adds some more details.
More generally, I do not think that "infrastructure" necessarily means government provided or regulated, but it does often mean that markets may fail for a variety of reasons, many of which I talk about in the paper. My focus is primarily on the demand side -- why does society demand infrastructure? how does infrastructure generate value? etc. -- and not the supply side, which means that I do not reach firm policy conclusions (I think I am pretty explicit about that). I also attempt to explain the advantages of managing certain infrastructure as a "commons," by which I mean access and use made available to the relevant community (usually the public for most infrastructure) on a nondiscriminatory basis. A point that may resonate with libertarians, I suppose, is that managing infrastructure as a commons avoids relying on infrastructure providers or the government to make decisions about the types of users or uses (or downstream markets) that are worthy of priority. It is a rather complicated point for a blog post/comment, so I'll leave it at that and just point to the article for details.
OK, a few quick thoughts rambles into too much. my apologies.
Brett
2 years ago
in Blogs in the Balance? on The Technology Liberation Front
I was too slow (and busy with something else!). The comments prior to mine suggest that I am heading down a tangential path. I agree with your general point, Tim, that we have no reason to think that differential pricing would preference one type of political blog over another; they all would presumably be equally willing and able to pay.
2 years ago
in Blogs in the Balance? on The Technology Liberation Front
Good question. I am not suggesting that the CEO of Comcast would use control over the infrastructure to push a particular political agenda. I am suggesting that conditional prioritization or differential pricing can be used to preference certain types of technologies and certain types of content. Comcast may structure its pricing in many different ways. It may favor one type of blog application over another, which may affect the degree of interactivity or participation. It may favor one speaker or type of speaker over another--differential pricing may accomplish this simply by virtue of differences in those speakers' relative willingness and ability to pay. It may prioritize delivery of traffic based on use of affiliated advertising (which could lead to problems if affiliates gather, aggregate, and process info about content posted). Etc.
But my primary point is rather simple (although perhaps disconnected from your specific concern about political content manipulation). The arguments in favor of no regulation often focus on the perceived need to discriminate and prioritize to supply better products and services. Well, it goes both ways. The common refrain that "the market" will discipline infrastructure providers that do not give consumers what they want is overstated (for a variety of reasons Barbara van Schewick and I explain in a forthcoming paper), and even if true, it misses, what I think is, the more important point: consumer willingness to pay for specific types of applications or content may be a very poor guide for allocating infrastructure access (and from a longer term dynamic perspective, structuring the online environment).
But my primary point is rather simple (although perhaps disconnected from your specific concern about political content manipulation). The arguments in favor of no regulation often focus on the perceived need to discriminate and prioritize to supply better products and services. Well, it goes both ways. The common refrain that "the market" will discipline infrastructure providers that do not give consumers what they want is overstated (for a variety of reasons Barbara van Schewick and I explain in a forthcoming paper), and even if true, it misses, what I think is, the more important point: consumer willingness to pay for specific types of applications or content may be a very poor guide for allocating infrastructure access (and from a longer term dynamic perspective, structuring the online environment).
2 years ago
in Blogs in the Balance? on The Technology Liberation Front
Tim,
I agree with you that context matters and that abstracting too much from the context may be misleading. But focusing in on the existing set of blog offerings and what would happen if one suddenly disappeared also misleads. Yes, some users would switch ISPs if their chosen blog is not available. (We could open up a debate on the effectiveness of switching as a means for disciplining ISPs, but let's not for now.) The point Benkler and others make is a dynamic one about how the information-cultural environment is shaped. Pricing infrastructure access on the basis of identity, use, or application will shape the availablity and diversity of different users, applications and content. (That is one of the main reasons advanced for opposing net neutrality regulation, right?) It seems to me that Benkler is on solid ground in arguing that infrastructure owners have both the ability and incentive to shape the environment is a manner that makes it look more "push" than "pull." To my knowledge, Internet technology is not inherently "pull" rather than "push." It is is malleable.
I agree with you that context matters and that abstracting too much from the context may be misleading. But focusing in on the existing set of blog offerings and what would happen if one suddenly disappeared also misleads. Yes, some users would switch ISPs if their chosen blog is not available. (We could open up a debate on the effectiveness of switching as a means for disciplining ISPs, but let's not for now.) The point Benkler and others make is a dynamic one about how the information-cultural environment is shaped. Pricing infrastructure access on the basis of identity, use, or application will shape the availablity and diversity of different users, applications and content. (That is one of the main reasons advanced for opposing net neutrality regulation, right?) It seems to me that Benkler is on solid ground in arguing that infrastructure owners have both the ability and incentive to shape the environment is a manner that makes it look more "push" than "pull." To my knowledge, Internet technology is not inherently "pull" rather than "push." It is is malleable.
