June 14, 2006
Net Neutrality: Liberal v. Conservative? Pro v. Anti-Business?
As the Senate moves forward with its bill to revamp telecom laws, the net neutrality debate has been irrevocably painted as a liberal versus conservative, business versus anti-business issue. The latest case in point: this piece today by the Wall Street Journal’s Dionne Searcey and Amy Schatz.
The piece characterizes net neutrality proponents as web denizens whose cause has been taken up by left-of-center groups, while those who oppose net neutrality are, well, either broadband providers or Republicans.
Much of the Web debate is financed by an alliance of liberal interest groups, such as MoveOn.org, and high-tech companies, such as Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., on one side, and by the telecom industry, which is relying more heavily on traditional lobbying, on the other. Both sides are flying pro-Internet flags with themes like “defenders of the Internet” (for many of the Democrats and high-tech firms) and “hands off the Internet” (for many of the Republicans and phone and cable companies that sell Internet connections).
This characterization of left v. right is just the ticket to ensuring that a telecom bill passes with no real net neutrality provisions given that we have a Republican-controlled Congress. In truth, however, the whole notion of net neutrality doesn’t seem to inherently lend itself to one political ideology or another.
If they are considered right-of-center, libertarians might naturally oppose net neutrality because it injects some form of government regulation into a marketplace where none exists now. Other than that, how is it “Republican” to favor one set of business interests over another (broadband providers over Internet-based businesses)?
As Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said during yesterday’s Senate hearings on the Stevens bill, “there isn’t any pro-business position here.” While the Senator is, in fact, a liberal, her words ring true.
The problem is not one of philosophy but, surprise surprise, one of money. Amazon, Google, eBay and other Silicon Valley interests who are funding the net neutrality advocates haven’t typically donated to Republican candidates (they haven’t, typically, been that active in Washington period). Being the old lobbying pros that they are, cable operators and phone companies have been equal opportunity spenders — Democrats and Republicans alike get campaign contributions, although admittedly Republicans get more nowadays.
That’s why the traditional lobbying has paid off for broadband providers and that’s why the net neutrality proponents have been so ineffective. The sad but sorry lesson for Internet-based businesses in all of this: next go-around, donate more to political candidates of all stripes.
Update: As this Op-Ed piece by Adam Cohen in today’s New York Times suggests, Democrats may, in fact, be constitutionally more comfortable than Republicans are with technology and the Internet.
There are some cultural reasons why Democrats may be more attracted to the Internet. Democrats, as a group, may have warmer feelings about science and technology, or perhaps they are attracted to the decentralized, anti-authoritarian nature of blogs and e-mail (the exact opposite of a show like Rush Limbaugh’s, where the host speaks and the “dittoheads” take it all in).
But these are cultural and not philosophical distinctions in terms of right-left. My main point stands: if net neutrality proponents just start spending some cash across the political spectrum, the path to success will be a lot easier.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at June 14, 2006 09:43 AM