For years and years (back to 1998 at least), the telcos have been saying that if we only gave them enough incentives and enough freedom, they'd install fiber-optic lines in the U.S.  Trusting in our Lucy-and-the-football way, we gave them concession after concession -- undoing unbundling, undoing interconnection, and (finally) giving them the same regulatory treatment as traditionally proprietary cable systems. 

The network neutrality battle is yet another plea for concessions by the telcos.  Give us incentives! they cry.  But why should we believe them this time?  Why would this next step - monetizing their networks - give them them any more oomph than they've had so far?  After all, with the exception of Verizon the Bells are spending less on capital investment than they're claiming as depreciation.  Which means, in translation, that they're already spending less than the assumed cost of maintaining their current networks. No oomph to speak of.

Why should we trust them now? We've already given them incentive after incentive, access to rights-of-way (presumably in exchange for common-carrier behavior, as Dan Berninger points out), and the regulatory shirts off our backs. 

Similarly, the cablecos often claim that they need incentives in exchange for their $100 million investment in broadband.  But that investment happened years ago.  Why would making them comfortable now make a difference? 

The incumbents' incentives arguments are very similar to those highlighted in the copyright wars, and particularly in the Eldred battle.  "Give us incentives or we won't create!" was the cry then.  The economists' amicus brief in Eldred made the point that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act would provide no significant incentive to create new works. 

Same thing here:  given what we've already been through with the telcos, and the extensive concessions they've already obtained, there is zero evidence that they'll magically do better with broadband penetration if they win the net neutrality fight.  They're asking us to take a leap of faith and believe in their property rights argument, but we know there will be significant social costs if we give in -- and we have no reason to believe that the additional incentive will make any difference.

Thanks to Dave Burstein for talking to me -- he has some stories to tell about SBC that I won't reveal here, so watch for his next newsletter.