[governance] rights based approach to the Internet

[Michael Gurstein]

Milton, 

To give a flavour of a debate yet to come...

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: April 14, 2008 10:27 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; McTim
Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> What a "Right to the Internet" does is to establish that a public good
is
> understood to be realized through the Internet being made available to
ALL
> within the community.
> 
> How it is delivered or how this availablilty is practically ensured
(by
> the State; by the private sector through incentives, regulation,
Public
> Private Partnerships; NGO's; or other) really doesn't matter.

Oh but it does. There is this little thing called the budget constraint.

It means that society has many, many things that it wants and needs but
perhaps not enough money in the treasury to get them all. So you have to
choose. 

BUT AS YOU KNOW STATES HAVE MULTIPLE WAYS OF ENSURING THAT THINGS GET DONE
OF WHICH DIRECT EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE TREASURY IS ONLY
ONE--REGULATION, TAX ABATEMENTS, DIRECTED CONTRACTS, AND SO ON AND SO ON...
I KNOW THAT THESE OFFEND THE NEO-LIB SENSIBILITIES BUT WHAT THE HECK...


Articulating a right to Internet in that case could mean cutting back on the
right to health care or education or some other good. Or it may mean
restricting freedom of choice; in setting up subsidy schemes for the favored
good, one can create a kind of economic protectionism or inappropriate
restrictions on human behavior in order to preserve the subsidy or protect
the institutions delivering the subsidy. 

AS I SAID WHAT THE HECK... "ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM" (I.E. LOOKING AFTER
ONE'S OWN NATIONAL, COMMUNITY ETC. INTERESTS AHEAD OF KOWTOWING TO ABSTRACT
ECONOMIC THEORIES) OR "INAPPROPRIATE RESTRICTIONS ON HUMAN BEHAVIOUR" (I.E.
REGULATING CORPORATE BEHAVIOUR SO AS TO ENSURE THE GENERAL GOOD) OR
"PROTECTING INSTITUTIONS" (I.E. MAINTAINING DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE TOOLS
THAT CAN BE USED TO SUPPORT THE GENERAL GOOD) SEEM TO ME TO BE VERY GOOD
IDEAS IN ANY UNIVERSE WHERE THE MARKET IS ONLY ONE AMONG MANY TOOLS FOR
PURSUING THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER...    


This is why I don't like it when people confuse _policy_ with _rights_. 

I THINK THE CONFUSION BETWEEN POLICY AND IDEOLOGY IS EVEN MORE PERNICIOUS...


If you say, "we should have a policy of promoting Internet access," fine
-- one can then enter into reasonable negotiations and budget allocations
regarding how much of the state's or private actor's resources are to be
committed to one goal versus another. And you don't lose sight of the
question whether the policy actually succeeds in promoting internet access.
But if one says one has a "right" to a service, the production and
consumption of which inherently draws resources away from other things, then
one cannot make a rational decision about relative levels of resource
allocation. And the rights language also encourages one to forget about
whether the policy used to achieve greater levels of access is effective and
efficient. Just look at what you said above - "really doesn't matter" how
you do it. 

ISSUES OF RIGHTS ARE AS YOU WELL KNOW, NORMATIVE... THE BALANCING (OR
NEGOTIATION) OF RIGHTS IS ALSO NORMATIVE... IN A SANE WORLD WE DON'T BUY AND
SELL RIGHTS, RATHER WE ENACT THEM AND THEN WE UNDERTAKE THE FINANCIAL AND
POLICY PLANNING AND COST BENEFITS AND RISK ANALYSES AROUND FIGURING OUT HOW
TO IMPLEMENT THEM... SEE ABOVE...

> 
> In a "Rights" based regime the
> Right of the State to support measures for the public good trump the 
> rights of private owners to dispose of their property as and how they 
> wish. This at least at the theoretical level has little to do with how

> the Internet "grows" etc.etc.

But it has everything to do with how the Internet grows. If the rights of
private owners - who by the way probably comprise 80% or more of the
Internet - to recoup investments in networks or internet services is
regulated too much or completely undermined, then the Internet ceases to
grow. And no amount of "rights" language on pieces of paper will make it
grow. 

ACTUALLY THAT'S NOT TRUE... THE INTERNET SINCE IT IS SO ATTRACTIVE FROM A
MARKET PERSPECTIVE WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY CONTINUE TO GROW... AND THERE IS NO
NEED FOR "RIGHTS" TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO FOR EXAMPLE ARE ABLE TO PAY OR ARE IN
LOCATIONS WHERE, BECAUSE OF POPULATION DENSITY OR VALUE OF THE CUSTOMER BASE
WILL HAVE READY AND LOW COST ACCESS. HOWEVER, AT THE MARGINS I.E. THOSE WHO
CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY OR WHERE THE MARKET DOESN'T SEE MUCH VALUE IN PROVIDING
A SUPPLY AT A REASONABLE COST IS WHERE "RIGHTS" (ON PAPER OR WHEREVER)
BECOME EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND WHERE THE INTERNET CAN AND SHOULD BE "MADE"
TO GROW.

MG

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance