The recent decision by the FCC to impose new regulations in the name of “net neutrality” has certainly got the attention of major GOP and conservative opinions leaders. (Soon to be) Speaker of the House John Boehner spoke out against it on Twitter. Michelle Malkin, writing on NRO, elegantly highlighted the influence by leftists who are pursuing “media justice” and sorely misguided attempts by the left to identify internet access as a civil right.
What is lost, however, in these partisan battles over the right and extent to internet access is the very protection of free speech. The idea of net neutrality is simple enough: enact protections against charging different rates for date depending on the type of media or the source of the data. Imagine being charged ten cents per megabyte of data if you go to YouTube for video, but only charged one cent per megabyte if you go to MSMBC because NBC is affiliated with your internet service provider. On the other end of that equation, imagine content producers and alternative news sites being charged more for the bandwidth they use to upload content. Sites like biggvernment.com, Townhall, and others could see their internal costs go up because the companies that service the backbone of the internet want to make deals with major media outlets.
But here is where everything gets very complicated, very fast: “net neutrality” can either accelerate the arrival of this hypothetical scenario, or prevent it because almost everyone has a different meaning in mind when they talk about net neutrality. Moreover, few if anyone in government truly understand how the internet works on a technical/engineering level. Remember the now famous comment by the late-Senator Stevens that the internet was made of tubes. More than fodder for the late-night comic shows, it highlighted this dearth of understanding. And it is here that conservatives are missing a great opportunity to seize the discussion rather than dismiss it.
It does not matter if data is being accessed via wireless, mobile devices, or hardline, without protecting data—not “guaranteeing access”—and in effect guaranteeing that all data will be treated and charged the same by both internet service providers, and the firms that handle the backbone traffic, free speech on the internet could be detrimentally hindered in the future.
Conservatives are right to reject Orwellian schemes designed to increase government control of yet more aspects of our lives. But instead of responding with a rejection “net neutrality”outright, we need to formulate a principled response so that we can have a free and open internet.
