Framing the Net Neutrality Debate

Sorry for the delay in commenting on this, but I’ve been sick with the flu and I’m just now getting back to normal.

Back on February 26th, the FCC voted to treat the Internet as a utility. As a huge fan of “Net Neutrality” I was cautiously optimistic about this, but I was saddened by the fact that the 3-2 vote was along party lines. With the current dysfunctional US government, I was hoping that something as important as a free and open Internet would not be politicized.

Those who would try to control the Internet for their own agenda were quick to respond. Verizon issued a reply that looked like it was created on an old typewriter, implying that ideas created in 1934 (the law that formed the basis of the FCC decision) couldn’t be useful in a modern world. It’s an informal fallacy – instead of trying to describe why the world would be better off with Verizon in control of the Internet, a much harder proposition, they opted to throw a bunch of rhetoric at the problem.

Those against Net Neutrality are going to try to frame the issue as “anti-capitalist”. The problem is that a key component of free markets is “easy entry and exit”. The idea is that if one company is making a profit, competitors will enter in to the marketplace until the overall profit reaches zero. The problem with utilities such as the Internet, electricity and water is that it is not easy to enter or exit the market, which creates barriers to a truly free marketplace. While I can argue that it is uniquely American for a large corporation to try and protect its unfair advantages, it is also anti-capitalist and government should exist to maintain a level playing field.

No, what Verizon dreams about is becoming the Enron of the Internet. I managed to get my hands on a leaked, new “Venron” logo:

Enron demonstrated the problems when you try to mix in greed with a utility. Due to companies such as Enron exerting undue influence in politics, the decision was made to deregulate the generation of electricity in California. Everyone used the same rhetoric being used in the Net Neutrality debate: free markets are the best for the people and “trust us” – why would we want to hurt our own customers? This resulted in skyrocketing energy prices and rolling blackouts throughout the State.

Internet companies such as Verizon are using those same tactics to build opposition to Net Neutrality. Their pet politicians, such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (the State responsible for Enron) have been hard at work trying to tie a free Internet to the idea of “too much government” and you can expect them to compare it to everything from the Affordable Care Act to Climate Change.

We need to respond with the simple mantra that a vote against Net Neutrality is a vote for an “Enron of the Internet”. It’s as easy and straightforward as that. Net Neutrality means that no one company, or cabal of companies, can control the Internet – not even the government. It is a vote for freedom and democracy, and anyone who is against that is against the ideals that created our country in the first place.

Yeah, I know that the Constitution is a really old document (even older than 1934) but it has held up pretty well. Let’s make sure that the opponents of a free Internet aren’t allow to disgrace it as well.