Net Neutrality -- defined as the principle that users should control what they can access on the net -- or, from the supply side of things, that Internet service providers shouldn't be able to block content from some users or create a tiered service model. Today, the Federal Communications Commission started the long rule-making process by a unanimous vote.
It's a hot issue in tech -- one that could define the future of the net -- but it's also become a terribly important political issue. Here's why.
One: there's a split in the Democratic coalition, featuring, in general, progressive/tech activists on one side and Blue Dog Dems and civil rights groups on the other. Netroots progressives had three main issues in 2008: Iraq, FISA, and
net neutrality.
Two: the divisions have a created a split among Democratic elected officials. Seventy-two House Dems signed a letter urging the Federal Communications Commission to slow down its pro-neutrality activities.
Three: it's a proxy for a fight over the economy. Why did all the major carriers turn
down stimulus money
that had net neutrality provisions? (How do you
think Rahm Emanuel felt about stimulus money getting turned down?)
Contrast this to the acceptance of TARP money and executive pay.
Four: a healthy chunk of the economy is at stake. Threatens Verizon:
"On the larger scale, America's telecom companies invest more in networks every year than the Federal government invests in transportation. In fact, if you exclude real estate, investment in information, communications and technology accounted for an astonishing 43 percent of all capital investment in the U.S. last year. Since the start of the recession, these investment levels have held up better than almost any other sector of the economy - down just 2.5 percent through the second quarter of '09, as compared with a drop of more than 20 percent in private investment as a whole."AT&T and other groups are stepping up efforts to reframe the issue as one of regulation -- that net neutrality is a solution searching for a real problem, and that costs for Internet users are bound to rise.
Five: it involves an Obama campaign promise, specifically to promote the issue through the FCC.
Six: Cue Glenn Beck, and allegations of socialism and Marxism.
Can we make the amount of natural gas I get this winter unlimited for a flat fee as well?
Who the hellhas said anything in any of these proposed regs about unlimited service being provided at a flat fee?
A Crying Shame
This split has been a problem for decades within the Democratic Party, notably the Texas Democratic Party where it all started.
The split among Democrats stems (a) from collusive bargaining within the AFL-CIO, especially the CWA, as well as (b) from monopoly rent-sharing manifest as minority set-asides.
The results have been bad, devastating actually, for union membership here as well as for any combination of young, poor, or non-white households in my state.
Those households are the marginal Democratic voters or, tellingly, non-voters. So, this split has trashed the Democratic Party, in this state.
Debt-ridden, parallel trackage, ("a series of tubes") sustained, sort of, by "charging whatever the traffic will bear" has been very good, however, for the DSCC and DCCC or other cringing liberal or actually corrupt politicos, who distribute patronage and raise money for incumbent protection + targeted campaigns.
That is a problem for both Netroots Nation and Net Neutrality. These are wannabe and actual lobbies. What they are not are (a) populist Democrats who understand or promote the fundamental concept of (b) common carriage.
That is a shame, for in the internet era, as in the railroad era three generations ago, the Democratic Party could actually be unified around common carriage rather than being just a vehicle for the precious Net Neutrality lobby and whatever (neo-Clerical) deal they negotiate with the post-feudal) bi-partisan concession-tenders there in "Versailles".
John Robert BEHRMAN
Committeeman, SD-13
Texas Democratic Party
There's nothing about Net Neutrality that mandates that the amount be unlimited or that the fee be flat.
They could still meter your usage and charge you per gigabit you send or receive from your home. The fact that they don't meter data usage has nothing to do with Net Neutrality provisions. What prevents *that* is competition and inertia.
Net Neutrality just prevents them from charging you more because you watch video over Hulu or YouTube rather than video supplied by their homegrown service--kinda the same way the gas company charges you for the total amount of gas you use rather than different rates for gas used to fuel your furnace vs. that used for your stove vs. that used for decorative lanterns.
How *much* bandwidth you use is certainly the telecoms' business. How you use it is yours--and should stay that way.
I wish we could rate comments here, as I'd rate this one a "+". Nice clear explanation.