Tag: ISP

Property Rights in the Digital Paradigm

By Atilla Sulker | United States

Earlier this year, I published an article on Lewrockwell.com in which I discussed social media sites, free speech, and “digital property rights”. In this piece, I came to the conclusion that social media sites and blogs are very much like physical buildings and firms. The property owner may set his own rules within his property, so long as these rules don’t involve violence. He may grant, limit, or completely revoke my right to free speech, and may expel me from his property if he wishes. Social media sites ought to operate in this same way.

What my investigation underscored, however, was something more fundamental. Not only did it shed light on the fact that free speech stems from property rights, or that property rights can be applied to the internet, but it also highlighted that private property rights are an excellent tool in combating disputes over speech, among other issues, and are the final arbitrator in such disputes. I am currently working on a paper in which I seek to give a more than superficial analysis of the internet through property rights, but for the scope of this article, I shall try to summarize my argument extending digital property rights beyond social media sites.

If social media sites are like private firms in the physical realm, then networks and ISPs are like private roads and road managers, respectively. The internet is comprised of multiple networks, each connected to form the aggregate. This conglomeration of networks allows the user to explore what we refer to as the internet, a set of connected networks.

Suppose that we lived in a society in which all roads were privatized and road managers could collect money for the use of roads through various different mechanisms. A given road manager could charge a fee per mile, a fee every time someone entered their road, a larger year-long pass fee, etc. Regardless of how the fee would be collected, competition would encourage the most convenient system, and so a one time fee covering a longer term of usage would probably become popular.

Now just as buildings and land are private property, private roads are as well. If a private road manager were given full access to his property rights, he would be able to curtail the entry of certain people, limit certain speech, etc. This could be very practical, as the majority of society would demand that certain people such as criminals not be let in, this demand being backed by their willingness to give the road manager their money. Roads could also prevent overflow by not permitting the entrance of people beyond a certain limit. We now see that roads are bound by the same property rights as houses and restaurants, given that they are privatized.

Since ISPs own a certain portion of the internet, their respective network can in many ways be likened unto road managers owning certain roads within the whole conglomeration of roads and highways. For one to own property, they must either homestead “common property” (property not owned by anyone, for example, a chunk of undiscovered land), purchase it from someone else, or steal it. Public property is another interesting phenomenon. No one owns it, but everyone uses it and funds it.

Many claim that the internet is “open” or public, but this defies the fundamental nature of how property works. “Common property” does not exist in the digital realm since bandwidth, which can be likened unto lanes in a road, is created by ISPs, hence they claim the original ownership. Henceforth, they have the exclusive right to use the property as they wish. In this sense, the idea of net neutrality is rebuked, for it is a violation of digital property rights, the equivalent to the property rights of the private road owner.

These roads lead the way to websites, which can be put into two categories. The first one is the one I discussed in my previous article- social media sites and blogs. Again, these websites are like physical property in which the owner may expel people. The second type of website would be simply meant for reading information, not including any accounts (for example, an informational site). These websites can be likened unto privately owned land/ landmarks not meant for letting people in, but meant simply for viewing as one drives down a road.

Ultimately, each ISP, like a private road would offer something to bring in more customers from other firms. Imagine that there is a Starbucks in the middle of nowhere and there exist two roads to get to it. Suppose one road is made of a material that drastically speeds up the cars using it, while another road is just a normal road. Assuming the price to use either road is near the same, the customer would choose the former as he would be able to get his coffee faster and get back to what he is doing. Customers could choose ISPs over each other in this same fashion. Certain ISPs could also limit internet traffic to prevent “overflow” and keep their networks efficient. Hence trying to homogenize each network is actually betraying the idea of consumer choice, despite the rhetoric of those supporting it.

My investigation has hopefully dispelled this notion that the internet is “free” or “open”. This is a common fallacy that ignores the hierarchical connection between property rights and free speech, the former being the apparatus which the latter stems from. If we treat the internet in the same way in which we treat the physical realm, it is seen that private property rights again become the final arbitrator of disputes. Domain owners own only their plot of “land” and ISPs own their “roads”. Taking this approach is not only moral but allows the market economy to properly function and bring on a plethora of competing firms and consumer choices.


Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “Of Private, Common, And Public Property And The Rationale For Total Privatization.” Libertarian Papers 3, no. 1 (2011): 1-13.

This article was originally published on LewRockwell.com

71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!


Net Neutrality Can Leave

By Emily Merrell | USA

Net Neutrality is currently one of the most talked about topics on the internet, it affects both internet users and ISPs. Many people are pro-Net Neutrality due to the internet’s largest websites’ and people’s influential opinions, but these opinions are lacking.

Net Neutrality is not a policy or legislation, it is a set of regulations granted by the FCC by Obama’s administration allowing communication legislation to regulate the internet for the public interest. These regulations prohibit Internet Service Providers from being able to change network speeds. These regulations empower the bigger ISP companies for profit while giving smaller ISPs no ability to compete.

The first major issue with Net Neutrality is the fact that it gives the FCC power. The FCC is a communication department, originally created to help the government for unhindered signals and radio piracy. This was used in the 30’s when rogue broadcasters created signals to disrupt bigger stations. It was also used in the era of analog TV’s to keep the peace for TV channels. The internet is way bigger than these things as it has no limit and constant growth. FCC control of the internet is out of date.

The most common fears of Net Neutrality stem from the idea that corporations will throttle speed, provide fast lanes for specific sites, and the placement of limits for specific sites. However, what people do not understand about this is the fact that this might be beneficial and the extent to how this would be implemented. The companies that control our internet speed understand the unpopularity of modifying internet speeds for specific sites and will most likely do this in small amounts if any at all. Second of all, these companies will have specific websites with the desire for higher speeds, even at very limited differences. Speed differences can even help websites that are packed with visitors by preventing them from crashing. However, it will be very expensive to make changes to internet speeds making it unrealistic that any major changes will be occurring. These ideas are all hypothetical, though.

Since the free market has been prohibited from experimenting with internet speed, pricing, and making certain deals with websites, it is unknown how many of these changes will affect us and the internet we know today. What we do know is that the free market will not try to overpower us. ISPs will cater to consumers and see how the people react to any changes. If your internet service provider makes any changes that you don’t like, then there is definitely another one that doesn’t make these changes that you can switch over to.

We may even have a reason to be excited about these regulations being repealed. Netflix draws millions of users daily. Netflix may make a deal with Comcast to increase their internet speed. Consumers that use Netflix frequently may want to switch over to Comcast. Comcast will be receiving payment from Netflix, causing Comcast to be less dependent on billing their consumers. Netflix will likely need less research and development for higher internet speeds if Comcast is helping them produce faster speeds. This will be the same for other websites.

The market is the most beneficial place for consumers. Supply and demand rarely fail and companies will see how their customers react to changes. The defense of Net Neutrality has good intent: keeping the internet “neutral” for internet speed. However, they do not realize the danger of having government control over the internet. The more regulations over certain things, the more we are being controlled by the government. Experimenting with internet speeds may be beneficial to us as we want to visit our most frequently used websites faster. Businesses will directly receive feedback from customers, data is gathered from advertisement, and connections are created from choices and knowledge of information. All in all, we must realize that Net Neutrality restricts freedom on the internet, is protectionist, and is very costly. Net Neutrality is certainly not neutral in any shape or form.