Neutral Views on Net Neutrality

On Tuesday, September 25, the Wayne State University Federalist Society hosted “Net Neutrality,” a policy discussion about how best to keep the internet free. Professor Jonathan Weinberg of
Wayne State University Law School debated the issues against Ms. Diane Katz of the
Mackinac Center, while Professor Derek Bambauer moderated. The event was a tremendous success, and a sign of great things to come for the Wayne Federalist Society!

After everyone had an opportunity to load up on pizza and carbonated beverages (courtesy of the Wayne Federalist Society), Professor Bambauer introduced the panelists. The first speaker—none of than
Wayne’s own Professor Weinberg—appeared ready to capitalize on his home turf advantage! Professor Weinberg began by providing a brief overview of the history of the Internet. According to Weinberg, the unregulated nature of today’s Internet is not a new phenomenon, and can be traced back to the 1980’s. Weinberg explained that in the early 80’s, the FCC decided not to become involved in regulating the fledgling Internet. Although the Internet and supporting technologies became more advanced, the government continued to adopt a “hands-off” approach to the Internet. It is against this backdrop that AT&T and Verizon climbed to the top as the two dominant broadband providers in the
United States. According to Weinberg, AT&T wants to shift users to a cell phone-like experience where customers will no longer be able to access unlimited web content, but would instead purchase content packages providing differing levels of access. At the same time, AT&T would contract with individual websites to carry website content. Professor Weinberg argued that this type of scheme would lead to economic inefficiencies. In order to prevent it, and in order to ensure a competitive market, he argued, the government should impose net neutrality rules.

Ms. Katz vigorously disagreed. According to Ms. Katz, net neutrality is a “pernicious proposal,” which puts the current “regulatory oasis” “under siege.” Ms. Katz argued that net neutrality would force providers to treat all data on the network the same, and that this would infringe upon property rights and the freedom of speech. According to Ms. Katz, the pipelines through which the content flows are private property, and the providers (as well as websites) have a right to control the content that is offered. Moreover, Ms. Katz argued that additional regulations are unnecessary because the market is already regulated through the activities of consumers, advertisers, and other participants. Ms. Katz also argued that additional government regulation of the Internet could neutralize incentives to invest.

After Ms. Katz’s argument, each speaker was given time for a brief rebuttal. The rebuttals were electric—they allowed the passion of each speaker to come through, while simultaneously highlighting the main disagreements.

In all, 26 people attended the “Net Neutrality” policy discussion. Thanks to everyone involved for making it a great event!