When lawmakers debate the merits of network-neutrality rules designed to promote fair play on the Internet, they often speak in apocalyptic terms. A common Republican refrain is that the rules, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission's three Democrats in December, will trigger a "government takeover of the Internet." During floor debate last week on a GOP-backed resolution to repeal the rules, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, warned that enactment of the Republican measure would "end the Internet as we know it."
Suffice it to say that neither prediction is likely to come true any time soon--if ever. The phrase "the first casualty when war comes is truth" applies to partisan conflict as well, and network neutrality and other technology issues have become weapons in the ongoing battle. According to National Journal 's 2010 vote ratings, Congress was more divided along party lines last year than at any other time since 1982, when NJ began tabulating the rankings in their current form. To sell their positions to a fickle public that increasingly relies on Twitter alerts and such online provocateurs as the Drudge Report and The Huffington Post for news, lawmakers have become adept at reducing nuanced communications subjects to easy-to-digest sound bites and stretching the truth, when necessary.
The pattern can also be seen in the periodic rounds of debate about the fairness doctrine. If you're unfamiliar with this rule, that's because the FCC rescinded it in 1987. The doctrine required broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues, and its return would be a blow to conservative talk radio, which would have to balance Rush Limbaugh and other hosts with liberal voices.
Although there's virtually no chance that the agency will reinstate the doctrine, Republicans keep introducing legislation to block its reemergence, and Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, keep the debate alive by suggesting that it could return.
Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., a frequent critic of the FCC's net-neutrality rules, agreed that tech policy has become more partisan, especially on the Energy and Commerce panel's Communications and Technology Subcommittee, of which he's a member. "Republicans are trying to show the difference between the two parties in dealing with net neutrality and in dealing with the fairness doctrine," Stearns told National Journal . Nevertheless, he emphasized that other subjects--particularly recent debates over spectrum and broadband--have not divided members neatly along party lines.
Subtleties of policy issues are lost amid finger-pointing.
Stearns conceded that the subtleties of policy issues are lost when both parties become preoccupied with finger-pointing and scoring political points. Asked, for instance, whether small businesses might be vulnerable to anticompetitive tactics without the FCC's net-neutrality rules, Stearns acknowledged, "Yes, there are some nuances about this."
The intense focus on polarized topics such as net neutrality also means that other important regulatory issues facing the telecom industry--including efforts to overhaul intercarrier compensation (the fees that phone companies charge to carry telecom traffic from other providers) and universal service (a $7 billion federal fund that subsidizes phone costs in low-income and rural areas)--are not receiving much attention.
To set the record straight on net neutrality, the new rules permit the agency to act against broadband providers only if they're caught blocking or degrading online rivals. Even then, aggrieved parties would have ample opportunities to defend themselves and could escape sanction altogether if they prove that the interference resulted from "reasonable" management of their high-speed Internet traffic.
Furthermore, the FCC won't take over the Internet, because it can't. The Internet is an amorphous polyglot that doesn't respect international datelines or boundaries, making it as impossible to tame as the mythological Hydra: Cut off one Twitter feed or blog roll and it will instantly grow two more.
And what if the GOP rescinds the agency's net-neutrality rules? Just ask Comcast, which was excoriated by the media and raked over the FCC's coals a few years ago, about the effectiveness of public humiliation in reshaping corporate practices. After it was caught in 2007 interfering with customers using sites that enable the online sharing of movies, television shows, and other content, the company altered its policies. In a sign of just how much Comcast has evolved, it agreed in January to a seven-year net-neutrality commitment--even if the rules disappear--to seal the FCC's approval of its joint venture with NBC Universal.
Regarding the fairness doctrine, President Obama and his FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, have pledged not to revive it, but that hasn't quieted GOP lawmakers who oppose its reinstatement. Perhaps that's because stoking fear of a resurgence is an effective way to galvanize the Republican base.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., introduced legislation in 2009 barring the FCC from bringing back the doctrine, and he lists the subject on his website as being among his highest priority priorities, right up there with "energy" and "health care." Yet he's not a member of any committee with primary jurisdiction over the FCC or media policy.
The net-neutrality debate could soon shift to the Senate. George Washington is said to have told Thomas Jefferson that the Framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation, just as a saucer is used to cool hot tea. Although the Senate is likely to "cool" the House bill by killing it outright, it's unlikely to cool the rhetoric surrounding network neutrality and other tech issues. Both parties, it seems, have a vested interest in keeping the temperature hot.
No comments:
Post a Comment