Where Fair and Balanced Gets Its Start

One big mistake of journalism, as I was taught it, is that there have to be two sides to everything.

In seeking to identify two sides, it’s easy to let lies slide by from the weaker side.

Readers don’t learn the right lesson from this. They’re taught two sides, in fact, exist, when one side is being propped-up in a vain attempt to appear "fair." Thus, when someone else comes along who just lies, based on an agenda, the readers (who follow the agenda) will consider this later source "fair and balanced." And if this later source then says the Sun revolves around the Earth, or the Bible is science, they’ll buy it.

But remember where it starts, an obsession with balance, even when the facts don’t justify it. This is the crime that lets the others live, the bad habit which needs to be stopped.

And so we come to network neutrality. Dave Farber‘s Interesting People list has been getting an earful on this issue lately,  with nearly everyone stating that freedom of speech, freely heard is a core Internet value the Bells and cable operators should not be permitted to violate in the name of profit.

Some, of course, disagree. But their arguments are willfully dishonest.

We call first on Hiawatha Bray of The Boston Globe (above). "This second  tier of Internet service is really more like a private
network.  It’s not so much a bifurcation of the Internet, but a complete departure from it. Looked at that way, why shouldn’t the broadband providers
charge use fees to other data services?"

The response to this is simple. They’re calling it Internet service, as Bray knows. In many places (thanks to Bell perversion of the law) they are the only option for broadband, a monopoly. But don’t let facts get in the way of spin, right?

Then we have Gerry Faulhaber (left), a professor at Wharton, quick to appoint himself as Bray’s amen corner.  "Good job spotting this trend, Hiawatha.  We have seen the future and it is
private networks?"

As though those who are forced (due to a government-enforced lack of alternatives) to use a Bell broadband service were living in a free market. As though those who only have a Bell or cable operator (who may do the same thing) were living in a free market. As though the hoarding of infrastructure built through a government-granted monopoly is not subject to any government influence, nor should be.

As though the Red Queen were right. Execute first, trial later.

Bob Frankston, co-founder of Visicalc and one of the smartest people I know, tried to respond. His response was recommended to Farber by Tom Evslin, another brilliant fellow. But since Bray and Faulhaber were the only pro-Bell commenters on this entire (lengthy) thread, Farber ignored the response, in the name of "balance."

In the name of reality, Frankston’s response follows:

 

Got where? The carriers
have worked themselves up to the point they believe that their network is the
Internet when it’s just some plumbing we have to repurpose as a transport
despite its flaws and chokepoints.

What is a “network
operator”? If I have a campus LAN and a community LAN and interconnect with
others what is the network being operated? We just have our own facilities we
operate and the network is the collection of them with no single
operator.

What are these legal
constraints – a reduced ability to egregiously violate antitrust and free speech
laws?

The defense of network neutrality rests. For now. But it should never rest, if you want the U.S. economy to keep growing, and the U.S.A. to remain free.

Free speech, freely heard, shall not be trampled for a monopolist’s profit.