A couple of academic papers that I have recently seen, including a forthcoming paper to be published by Toronto-based telecommunications lawyer Dr. Alexander J. Adeyinka, refer to net neutrality as a variant of Aesop’s Fable of the Dog in the Manger.
A dog looking for a quiet and comfortable place to take a nap jumped into the manger of the ox and lay there on the hay. Some time later the ox, returning hungry from his day’s work, entered his stall and found the dog in his manger. The dog, in a rage because he had been awakened from his nap, stood up and barked and snapped whenever the ox came near his hay. The ox is a patient beast, but finally he protested: ‘Dog, if you wanted to eat my dinner I would have no objection. But you will neither eat it yourself nor let me enjoy it, which strikes me as a very churlish way to act.’
Moral: Some begrudge others what they cannot enjoy themselves.
[Grosset & Dunlap, 2000]
How does this fit the discussions surrounding Net Neutrality?
In economic terminology, a Pareto improvement occurs when one group is made better off without causing another group to be made worse off. Economists argue that Pareto improvements should always be encouraged.
Economists would argue therefore that access tiering would be a Pareto improvement relative to the status quo; there is no economic reason why one group of subscribers should not be permitted to benefit if there is not deterioration in the service provided to others.
Why is it that proponents of network neutrality build their arguments on what might be called an “anti-Pareto principle.” We hear claims that no one should be able to receive faster delivery paid by the supplier of content or applications unless everyone does.
Georgetown University law professor Gregory Sidak argues that the “dog-in-the-manger” response to access tiering – some call it differential pricing – is intended to prevent a purely voluntary transaction from occurring. Dr. Adeyinka also noted that in a paper published this past summer, Hal Singer of Criterion Economics describes such net neutrality as the politics of envy. Net neutrality says: if a website cannot afford certain bells and whistles, then its rivals should not be allowed to acquire such enhancements.
We will be exploring Net Neutrality from all angles at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit in June.
Reference
I’ll provide a link to Alexander Adeyinka’s forthcoming paper, titled “Net Neutrality Law or Dog in the Manger Jurisprudence – Law & Economics of Net Neutrality in Canada“, once it has been published.