[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Riaz K Tayob]

I will not nitpick arguments, but MMs position is something Libertarian 
and/or New Institutionalist (seems not to me like that of Galbraith or 
Richard Ely or Thorstein Veblen, but I may be wrong). On this basis, the 
argument put forth by MM are not convincing, aside from my libertarian 
critique or New Institutional critique, which relates to assuming that 
contracts signed between two consenting parties is just that, a 
bilateral arrangement made under conditions of 'freedom' or liberty. The 
presumption here is that there are no externalities generated by such a 
contract. There can be many externalities to such arrangements (to 
pre-empt I am not against the private sector when it delivers the 
'goods'). There are external effects, such as the net neutrality 
position put forward below, i.e. the arrangement generates an 
externality. In this case it simply happens to relate to Net Neutrality, 
but externalities can be of many forms, for example as Curran posted the 
action taken against a website that was found to be legal in Spain but 
not in the US, justifying take down.

Cognisant of the fact that there are positive and negative 
externalities, and that circumstances are novel, some Darwinian 
selection is needed (increase fecundity), and so some leeway is needed. 
However I simply cannot start off from the presumption that bilateral 
arrangements are liberty or freedom (it is a particular type of freedom 
with a particular kind of voluntrism, everyone is free to sleep under 
bridges, as Louis put it) and interference with it is presumptively bad. 
We can see what this light touch freedom has done to Americans in 
finance - the conservative system was broken down, innovation in finance 
occurred because of free contracts in the name of efficiency, 
consequently the US is back to home ownership levels pre-1995. If this 
can happen in finance, it can happen in any sector. Therefore, from just 
one vantage, that of externalities much more will need to be adduced to 
be convincing on this point.

And since it also boils down to law in the end. One cannot understand 
the law except with the exception - the totality - or Das Ganz. So from 
this vantage the private only has meaning if we articulate what we mean 
by public. One without the other is like, one hand clapping...

Riaz


On 2013/04/29 09:03 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile 
> Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in 
> Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to 
> other social networking websites.
>
> OK, so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a classic 
> nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated in the context of 
> network neutrality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "public 
> goods" character of the internet or with "the commons." You do not get 
> any traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If you 
> want to make a net neutrality statement, make a net neutrality 
> statement, at least people will know what you are talking about.
>
> Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a 
> gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet.  
> For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it 
> - but I can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a 
> Bittorrent app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't.  
> I presume that you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", 
> which although becoming dated now gives many other examples.
>
> Again, this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform 
> operator having the authority to internalize the externalities of the 
> internet by making decisions about which apps/services can be excluded 
> and which cannot. There are two sides to that debate. The platform 
> operators argue that they should have editorial discretion; some 
> consumer groups actually _/want/_ platform operators to make those 
> decisions; many economists and regulators feel that competition among 
> platform operators is enough to keep abuses in check. There are 
> various examples of where public pressure has ended some arbitrary 
> incidents of discrimination. My purpose here is not to take either of 
> those sides, it is to point out that that debate has little to do with 
> the "public goods" character of the internet. Nor do I see what we 
> contribute to that debate with a vague invocation of "the commons."
>
> An app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons" would mean 
> what, exactly? That it is run by the government/public sector? Or that 
> there was no management at all, anyone could put anything on it, 
> including malware, phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and no 
> one would have any right to remove it, even if thousands of consumers 
> complain about it? But if there is selection, then who decides what is 
> selected and under what criteria? The government? Think that'll be 
> better? Which government?
>
> In sum, the policy prescription implied by such characterization is 
> not clear. This is still a meaningless statement.
>
> Also, we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing problem. 6 
> years ago, when I first started studying mobile network neutrality, 
> mobile walled gardens were the NORM. Most mobile operators confined 
> you to a restricted set of special services they had deals with. The 
> advent of the iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile 
> internet is far more open now than it was then. Where is the evidence 
> of a "growing trend?"
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130502/2f144af5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t