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!
I’m confused. I did follow the link and read the bill, which is 9 pages long, not 2-3. The definition of Neutrality (Section 12(a)) is 368 words, which seems like “several hundred” to me. And Section 12(e) says “Not later than 180 days 14 after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, the Commission shall prescribe rules to implement this section,” which sure sounds like the rules to implement the bill being left to the FCC. Where are the lies?
Also, the bill you cite isn’t what the FCC is currently considering. The proposed rulemaking announced last week is 107 pages long and much different than the IFPA.
You might think Net Neutrality is a good or bad idea (I have feelings both ways), but you don’t seem to have your facts very clear in any case. Sorry.
Well this is embarrassing! My credibility hinges on my willingness to post your response though, doesn’t it?
Since you claim to be confused, let me address each of these issues for you.
First, by way of introduction, Mr. Viero, I find it interesting that you work for Comcast, one of the companies that has expressed an opposition to Net Neutrality, and which recently won a court battle to overturn an anti-monopoly law that forbids a single cable company to own more than 30% of the airwaves. Without questioning your motives for ’stumbling’ across an obscure blog post about Net Neutrality, may I ask what you do at Comcast?
1. The bill is 9 pages long.
I stand corrected. This time I went back and counted the pages as meticulously as you did. Maybe I was just going from my gut, since the bill is printed in large, block type and only takes a minute or so to read. To my other readers, please don’t let the “9 pages” discourage you from doing your own research.
2. The definition of Net Neutrality is indeed “several hundred” words long.
I’m sorry, this was also carelessness on my part. There is a definitions section near the end of the bill, and I couldn’t comprehend any of these definitions being more than three or four lines, so I jumped and said that this statement was a lie. In fact, there is no definition listed in this section for Net Neutrality. Section 12 is not a definition, so technically he was not only lying that the definition was more than 100 words, he was also lying that there was such a definition.
3. Rules to implement the bill are, indeed, left to the FCC.
Please finish your quote. “Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, the Commission shall prescribe rules to implement this section that—‘‘(1) permit any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Commission concerning any violation of this section; and ‘‘(2) establish enforcement and expedited adjudicatory review procedures consistent with the objectives of this section, including the resolution of anycomplaint described in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after such complaint was filed, except for good cause shown.”
To me, this sounds like a fairly detailed description of exactly how to FCC should implement it’s rules. I could very easily pretend to be confused about your motives for misquoting the bill at this point.
4. Where are the lies?
The lie is that you are confused. And that you “have feelings both ways.” Otherwise you wouldn’t feel the need to color things to support your unposition.
5. The bill cited here isn’t what the FCC is currently considering.
Would you please provide a link to the bill currently being considered by the FCC? I assumed, once again, that this is really the bill we should be looking at, since it was posted by an opponent of Net Neutrality who has no reason to try and deceive us with a “good-sounding” version of the bill.
Could you “help me understand” the difference between the bill that’s currently being “considered” by the FCC and the bill that’s currently before congress?
>… you don’t seem to have your facts very clear in any case. Sorry.
Thank you. I’m a big fan of having the facts straight. I’ll try to do better next time.
I’d also like to point out, for my readers, that Mr. Viero did not provide any compelling reasons for conservatives to oppose the bill; and that while his criticism was extremely helpful, it served to reinforce my thesis instead of undermining it. The thesis being, check your facts! Don’t decide that the bill is a (good or) bad idea based on intentional misrepresentations and vaguely-stated opinions.
Edit:
I found a link to the current bill and Mark, I have to apologize again for misjudging you because it seems that you were, in fact, confused about which bill we should be looking at.
You can find the bill at:
http://www.freepress.net/files/H.R.3458-7-31-09.pdf .
After seeing the latest version, which is now up to 13 pages and reads like the declaration of indepencence, I feel that it further reinforces my position, and I encourage everyone to read it carefully.
I don’t work for Comcast! That’s just my Internet provider!
Here is a link to the 107-page FCC proposed rulemaking announced last week, from the website of the Center for Democracy and Technology:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf
The “current bill” you are linking to was introduced but there have been no hearings on it. The Committee is taking no action pending the FCC rulemaking process above.
I never said I’m for or against Net Neutrality–as I said, I have mixed feelings about it.
But I do understand that it is a complicated problem and that the legislative process is also complex.
I only wrote to correct what you said were “lies” by the author of the article discussing the 2006 version of the IFPA.
Maybe you should stick to whatever it is your job is and leave policy to people who understand it. Which doesn’t include me, either.
Thank you for coming back to look at my response. I wanted to notify you of the updates to this posting, but the email address you provided last time wasn’t valid; so I’m glad you were able to check back.
>I don’t work for Comcast!
I believe you. Could I ask what did motivate you to comment on this particular blog post? (This is a sincere question.)
>I never said I’m for or against Net Neutrality
No you didn’t – I did. And I still say you’re against it.
> I only wrote to correct what you said were “lies” by the author of the article discussing the 2006 version of the IFPA.
Thanks for clarifying that, having failed to be “corrected” about the lies I found, I can safely ignore all of the other issues you raised as well.
> Maybe you should stick to whatever it is your job is and leave policy to people who understand it.
Sorry, I already wrote to my congressmen.
My job is to be a computer programmer, and this issue is extremely relevant to absolutely everyone working in my profession. Also, may I ask, do you vote? Do you sign petitions? Because if so then you are partaking in a political system which encourages people to take an interest in policy and trusts them (as a group) to find out whatever they can about public affairs and influence those affairs as best they can with the information available. I like to think that not only do I understand policy somewhat, but that I have a responsibility to try and participate in the shaping of that policy as much as possible, at least insofar as it affects my interests as an American citizen working in the technology sector.
Your willingness to contribute here has helped me to become more informed about the issue, which is exactly what I was hoping for. This type of dialog, coupled with this type of research, is what should determine the agendas we support, not whatever Laura Ingram or Bill O’Reilly (or Abraham Serafino or Mark Viero) or our favorite activist groups tell us. That’s why I hope you’ll continue to come back and contribute further to this and other discussions.