Net Neutrality And Governing The Internet

You know that two of my interests are politics and technology.  When those topics collide, there can be pretty significant ramifications.  You may have heard the term 'net neutrality' floating around for the past few months, and maybe you've seen something about the whole Netflix vs. Comcast brouhaha.  Chances are you haven't bothered to learn much about it.  Honestly, I haven't really dug into it much, either, but I think we're at the point where we need to educate ourselves on the subject.  The Washington Times provides a great place to start:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency's chairman,Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the "freedom" of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped "non-public, for internal use only" to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for "openness."

It seems that the louder this administration pledges openness and transparency, the more it locks things down, and this is no exception.

The root problem is the question of whether or not the government should control (i.e. 'regulate') the Internet.  Thus, it is the height of un-shockingness that the Obama administration -- whose singular overriding goal appears to be expanding government control as far and fast as possible -- is trying to gain control of the Internet, too.  I'm sure it is no small coincidence that a huge chunk of the so-called new media (those who disseminate information and opinion outside of the traditional media outlets like the New York Times and television networks) resides on blogs, Twitter, podcasts, and other Internet-driven technologies.

I can see two major themes at play here, the first of which is fiscal.  Currently, there is essentially no Internet taxation.  Given that liberals believe your money is actually their money to spend, this angers them, and they seek additional ways to claim more of your money.  The second is that of control.  The Internet provides a vast playground for people of all stripes and beliefs to offer their thoughts and opinions, and those who prove valuable and entertaining can gain gigantic followings.  The biggest blogs often see hundreds of thousands of hits each day, and a few even crack into the millions.  That's a massive amount of outreach that can be obtained by any Joe Schmoe in his basement.  It's also the complete absence of control, and is really a microcosm of the free market, where those with a worthwhile product (in the form of information and entertainment) rise to the top.  This is a thorn in the side of liberals everywhere, because they rely on control -- of the message, of the medium, of the rules, and of the enforcement -- to achieve and maintain their agenda, their power, and their influence.

So, to a liberal, the Internet is a bastion of churning, frothing evil, and the only way to eradicate that evil is to control it with unquestionable force.

Back to the WT story for a bit more explanation.  First, the government's perspective:

The issue of "net neutrality" is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user's connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

In some cases, heavy use of this sort slows the Web experience for everyone sharing the same lines. That has prompted some cable Internet providers to consider either charging the heavy users more or limiting access to the "problematic" services. Of course, if cinema buffs find themselves cut off from their favorite service, they're going to be mad. If companies don't act, they're just as likely to find irate customers who don't want their experience bogged down by others.

And the other side:

It's not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it's not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet.

There isn't one, but that's not stopping this administration (remember, the FCC is driven by the White House, so anything Genachowski does is what Obama wants).  In the past, both parties have remained hands-off when it comes to the Internet, and rightfully so.  Earlier this year, the FCC was smacked down for a similar power grab, and it is likely that Congress will smack them down again here.

Still, the warning cannot be ignored.  The whole idea of 'net neutrality' is a seductive one.  Of course we want all content providers to have the freedom to offer their services on a fair playing field.  But look behind the facade - for the government to establish and maintain a fair playing field, that means they also get to define what 'fair' is, right?  What if they decide that 'fair' doesn't include something you consider important, like free speech?  If the FCC manages to wrest control of the Internet, we're one executive order away from having all political speech regulated, even on little personal blogs like this one.  I'm pretty sure I don't need to elaborate on just how dangerous a precedent that would be.

But if net neutrality doesn't accomplish it, they'll try it in some other way.  For example, we discussed the Wikileaks thing a bit last week.  Whether you agree or disagree with what they did in releasing confidential State Department documents, another danger lurks behind the scenes.  This is a perfect opportunity for another expansion of government control.  You can see it starting already, with Senators already legislating against Wikileaks and the Justice Department authorizing 'significant' actions against the owner of the website.  While we might all be able to get behind the idea that such leaks are damaging to national security and should thus be stopped, how long do you bet it will be before some liberals take that next tiny step and suggest that this is yet another reason that the government needs better control of the Internet?  I suspect it won't be long.  Let's watch and see.

The point is that while we certainly need to maintain order and security, we also need to be careful not to let opportunistic statists claw their way into governing every aspect of our lives because they will never depart.  And, I believe Benjamin Franklin said it best:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

We must always guard against the government taking away too much of our liberty, especially in the name of what's good for us.