By Rick Carnes
As a longtime Democrat, it concerns me greatly when our side of the aisle starts
sounding just like the Tea Party. Democrats are supposed to be the party of jobs.
On technology issues, we're supposed to be working constructively with labor, with
the creative classes (artists, musicians, songwriters, film makers) to build a digital economy
that creates jobs and economic well-being. But, just like the Tea Party, we're in
danger of being hijacked by an angry and vocal minority so convinced of the absolute
piety of their niche cause that they'll demonize anyone (including fellow Democrats)
who get in their way.
Against a backdrop of anemic U.S. economic growth and continued high unemployment,
the net neutrality one-notes at Free Press have hijacked what should be our broader
economic agenda. They continue to suck up all of the oxygen inside the beltway over
an issue that very few Americans care about or have ever paid any attention to.
But don't take my word for it... A Pew Internet report out on Monday shows that only a
tiny fraction (2%) of tech coverage last year was devoted to net neutrality. A
recent poll by Broadband for America showed that 63% of respondents believe the best
way to ensure a robust Internet is with the current approach rather than
heavy-handed FCC regulation. And Free Press' own net neutrality survey from 2009
showed that 80% of the public had never heard of net neutrality.
So what's going on here? The answer is that Free Press is out of touch with the
overwhelming concerns of voters - jobs and economic growth. Now more than at any
time during the past several years, the American people need to hear a positive,
unified economic message. They need to hear how government can foster an
environment that puts Americans back to work. This especially resonates among
singers, songwriters and others who make their living in the entertainment industry.
(We've got more song writers in Nashville delivering pizzas these days than writing songs)
So how is Free Press contributing to that discussion? By repeatedly targeting their
own allies in a vicious and personal campaign to tarnish anyone who strays from
their net neutrality orthodoxy.
They've attacked the President:
"Watching the Obama administration is like watching crash test dummies repeatedly
careen into the same wall as they side with industry - and against the public
interest - on nearly every issue."
They've attacked Democrats:
"[D]ozens of Democrats [are] willing to sell out their president, their
constituents, and millions of [Americans] to do the bidding of special interests.
They've attacked the FCC Chairman:
"Chairman Genachowski is now squarely in the crosshairs of the netroots community.
Should he cave to corporate special interest and sell out Net Neutrality, it will
become the signature action of a failed Obama appointee."
They've attacked labor:
"CWA is relying on their corporate masters rather than its natural allies..."
They've even rhetorically machine-gunned some of the most ardent net neutrality
supporters as "self-righteous, can't-we-just-all-get-along zealots of moderation"
that "are more dangerous to the prospects of net neutrality than... even Glenn Beck."
Wow!
So what have they gotten for all of their histrionics? The thoughtful technologist
and staunch pro-net neutrality blogger Lauren Weinstein probably summed it up best
this month:
"[Free Press'] 'no compromise -- take no prisoners -- scream and yell and berate'
approach to these issues may perhaps be useful from a fund-raising standpoint, but
is wholly antithetical to actually moving forward constructively on these critical
topics....
"In today's toxic political environment, where Big Lies and backstabbing have
seemingly become the orders of the day, it is perhaps unsurprising that some
pro-neutrality stakeholders have chosen to apparently embrace the mind-set,
methodologies, and rhetoric more commonly associated with the dark side of
politics... But riding as they are with some of the ghostly sensibilities of Senator
Joe McCarthy and the specter of McCarthyism, they should certainly be very much
ashamed of themselves."
Free Press' tactics aren't helpful. As a Democrat, I truly believe that Free Press
could be an important progressive voice at the table on how technology can
contribute to putting Americans back to work. They should be working constructively
with labor and creators on how entertainment, music, television, books, and movies
can contribute to the growth of the digital economy. But they've so marginalized
themselves in this debate with such extreme, uncompromising, and angry rhetoric that
they're now no longer even invited to the table. (That'll show 'em!)
It's time to get this over with. The nation desperately needs policymakers to focus
on technology policies that put America back to work, create jobs and grow the
economy. We should be concerned that our party seems to be abandoning its
traditional support for the working and creative classes and instead has been
captured by groups whose niche interests bear little relation to the traditional
interests that made our party such a strong coalition.
To paraphrase pro-net neutrality supporter Lauren Weinstein, rejecting reasonable
compromises on issues like net neutrality and stalling forward positive motion on a
range of other important Internet topics that can contribute to jobs and the economy
serves only to fan the flame of unrestrained political opportunism. So, there we
have it: Jobs and the economy or more political opportunism... We need to choose.
#1: Network Neutrality protections have existed for the entire history of the
Internet.
#2: Network discrimination through a “tiered Internet” will severely curtail
consumer choice, giving consumer control over the Internet to the network owners.
#3: Network discrimination through a “tiered Internet” will undermine
innovation, investment, and competition.
#4: Network discrimination through a “tiered Internet” will fundamentally
alter the consumer’s online experience by creating fast and slow lanes for Internet
content.
#5: No one has a “free ride” on the Internet. Network operators have the
revenue streams to support infrastructure development.
#6: Telephone companies have received billions of dollars in public subsidies
over the years to support network build-out.
#7: There is little competition in the broadband market, certainly not enough to
punish anti-competitive behavior.
#8: Consumers will bear the costs for network infrastructure regardless of
whether there is Network Neutrality or not.
#9: Investing in increased bandwidth is the most efficient way to solve network
congestion problems; discrimination creates an incentive to maintain scarcity.
#10: Network owners have explicitly stated their intent to scrap Network
Neutrality guarantees and build business models based on network discrimination.
#11: The House and Senate telecom bills will not deter discrimination, and even
tie the hands of the FCC from ever preventing it.
#12: The organizations supporting Network Neutrality represent a broad,
nonpartisan, coalition that joins right and left, commercial and noncommercial.
JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH. Take a poll of the American public and let's see how many people care about that.
I've discussed NN with hundreds, and well over 95% instantly agreed that this is an important issue and, if done right, a good policy choice. If more people don't care, it's because they don't know--and deriding the effort for failing to reshape the tech press (aka, Apple hype machine) is a ridiculously high standard.
Two more points. First, forget the Broadband for America (BfA) poll. BfA is a telecom astroturf group, with members including AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, CTIA and NCTA, and the poll is a joke.
The linked article explains: "The poll asked if respondents thought the best way to ensure an open Internet is to 'continue the current approach that has brought us the Internet we have today.'"
This is a great example of how to write a loaded poll question. To include a choice assuming the prior success of the status quo is terrible research--unless you want to predestine the results.
One more: The head of the Songwriters' Guild of America deriding NN as a niche issue is rank hypocrisy. The SGA stands for the self-interested pursuit of ever-stronger copyright that benefits only copyright holders. The copyright industries' growing opposition to strong NN is surely tied to their long-held dream of building copyright filters into the network.
The SGA stands for the self-interested pursuit of ever-stronger copyright that benefits only copyright holders."
The SGA does indeed fight for the rights of Songwriters and we are in favor of stronger
copyright laws, This is not a matter of self-interest alone, it is also a matter of creating a more
vibrant and sustainable musical culture in the United States. The concept of compensation
for the creators of intellectual property was placed in the US Constitution to support the
common good.
"surely tied to their long-held dream of building copyright filters into the network. "
Since the SGA is not on record advocating filtering the network this is simply a straw man fallacy.
Here's why this matters: When copyright holders oppose net neutrality, it's usually because they want copyright filtering, and copyright filtering is against the public interest.
On the second: For Rick to claim SGA doesn't support filtering is, um, disingenuous. Here’s a sampling:
1.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/entertainment-l/
"NEW LOBBYING GROUP CALLS FOR INTERNET FILTERING …
"Behind the lobby are AT&T, Cisco Systems, Microsoft, NBC Universal, Viacom and the Songwriters Guild of America."
2.
http://www.songwritersguild.com/net_neutrality.htm
"ISPs can actively help make MORE legal music available through more channels than we have today because intelligent networks can both help curb the tide of piracy and enable new ways to deliver legal music."
3.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Carnes080311.pdf
"HR 5417 … [should] permit ISPs to discourage illegal copyright practices … [and] encourage their customers to patronize sites that adopt lawful copyright practices."
That sure sounds to me like an industry group hell-bent on building copyright filtering into the network. And that's bad for the public. See:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1985
To say that I am blown away by Rick Carnes’ admonishment of Free Press today would be the understatement of the decade. Mr. Carnes’ assessment of Free Press’ approach to its campaign for net neutrality hit on an important and too often overlooked principle: that policy should address economic growth. This oversight has been my biggest issue with the net neutrality policy..
Even if you totally disregard the arguments of net neutrality opponents (something I would not advise were it not for sake of argument), the arguments of net neutrality proponents lay totally flat and hollow because for all their hell raising and name calling, no one in the Free Press camp has yet to make an economic, pro-growth argument that substantiates net neutrality as a viable, job creating policy. Not one.
Free Press and their associates have been so focused on spewing anger and sarcasm that even their definition of net neutrality has changed, going from the “we have to save the Internet from corporations” to, “net neutrality is synonymous to civil rights.” This is what happens when your approach is based on anger and spewing vile as opposed to sound political economy.
Mr. Carnes and I may be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but when it comes to acknowledging the principles of reason and focusing on substance, Rick Carnes gets it. Now if only Free Press can step back, take a breath, and reassess.
Without getting into the merits of either coal-fired power plants or net neutrality, the effects are the same: Whether on Capitol Hill, or dealing with the Executive Branch, compromise is not only the best course, it is often the only course.
The network providers insist that on users, streaming (often pirated) videos and music hour after hour has the effect of two 18-wheelers rolling side-by-side at 40 miles per hour down an interstate highway – they adversely affect the flow of all other traffic.
Carnes’ made the excellent point that the pro-net neutrality groups have taken an all-or-nothing stance and are in great danger of getting their wish: nothing.
The howling of outrage of the pro-net neutrality forces when it became public that several of the major players – from the ISPs to Google – were meeting with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to find common ground is ample evidence of their lack of understanding about how complex issues are addressed, and of their lack of maturity in helping to craft public policy.