Teknohazard Blog

The other day I heard a conservative talk show host decrying the evils of Net Neutrality. I don’t feel that Net Neutrality is contrary to the views of conservatives, so I wanted to educate my conservative-leaning friends on the subject.

Here’s a copy of the bill before congress, S. 2917-109. [NOTE: This is an older version of the bill. A link to the latest version can be found in my comments below.] It’s only two or three nine pages long, and a “layman’s terms” explanation can be found here. I’ve read the bill and agree with the explanation at savetheinternet.com, but the bill itself really isn’t very complex or lengthy, so please take the time to acquaint yourself with it.

The strongest argument for why Net Neutrality doesn’t fit in with the conservative platform is that it relies on the government to regulate something which has traditionally been unregulated. However, the internet started out as a secret military network, was eventually transformed into a public, non-profit-only network, and eventually the backbone servers were sold off to private interests. So the argument that the internet was originally unregulated, and therefore the “big, bad government should just keep its nose out,” is balogna.

Conservatives have voted again and again for legislation that keeps the market free and prevents unfair competition. The law-suit against Microsoft, and the breaking up of AT&T into “Baby bells” was supported by some conservatives who understood that one of the intended functions of our conservative, federalist government was to preserve the lazie-faire system. Don’t view Net Neutrality as “more mis-placed, big-government regulation.” View it as a government-mandated deregulation. View it as a shackle around congress’s legs, that takes away the power of special interest groups and lobbyists to demand more government regulation.

Two other important things to note in the bill: one is that illegal content is not protected. In other words, unlawful content is specifically excluded from the list of things ISP’s won’t be permitted to block. The second is that these are not new restrictions. ISP’s don’t currently engage in any of the practices that are prohibited in the bill; it’s purpose is to clarify that they are still not permitted to engage in those practices. (Unfortunately, the legal climate has recently become more favorable to some of these practices, and certain companies have expressed an intention to start abusing that fact.)

You can support Net Neutrality by signing the petition at savetheinternet.com. If you are a conservative who has heard bad things about Net Neutrality, please be aware that most of the tech-savvy conservatives I’ve talked to support it.

Educate yourself, and don’t let someone else (yes that includes me) tell you what you believe in. Read the bill for yourself and then make up your own mind.

Arguments against Net Neutrality can be found here. Some of the claims made about the bill in this article are outright lies, such as “Under the proposed Internet Freedom Preservation Act, to pick just one example, the definition of ‘neutrality’ goes on for several hundred words, and the implementing ‘rules’ are left to the FCC to define,” a lie which you will be able to recognize immediately if you’ve actually read the bill. [Addendum: the newer version of the bill does, in fact, leave quite a bit to the FCC. However, what he is calling the "definition of Neutrality" is actually the meat and potatoes of the bill, the proposed amendment itself.] He also provides some rather compelling support for the bill in a “my opponents say” format.

Larry Downes talks more about Net Neutrality here, and you can see by looking at other sources – like this one, (see the question, “How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?”), this one, and this one – he doesn’t have much to stand on with his claim that the “the problem doesn’t exist yet.” Point #2 can be refuted by looking closely at section 5 of the bill, which permits providers to prioritize content, as long as it doesn’t charge for prioritization. And I already talked about point #3 above.

This is a single example, but it’s a good one, because it typifies the arguments I’ve heard elsewhere. He attempts to use your own ignorance (and his authoritative-sounding position as a prestigious lawyer) against you. He speaks in generalities and states his own opinions as fact, without providing a way to verify his claims.

I can’t stress enough that you should go read the bill for yourself and then make up your mind. If after reading the bill, you don’t feel that it has much to do with you, you’re very probably correct. The only reason I’m bringing it up here is because it’s important, and it would really stink of this sort thing were to be shot down because a large group of people was mobilized under false pretenses. I don’t want you to get roped into supporting obscure political agendas that don’t serve your personal interests!

On the other hand, if you find something in the bill that sounds either really good or really bad, do some research. Verify any claims you hear against original sources (the bill itself, the history of related court battles and legislation, etc.) If it really is important, you can’t afford to let
someone else do the thinking!