Those Who Hate The Fairness Doctrine Should Love Net Neutrality

Nothing gets the right wing all riled up like a good phony fight. Think "death panels." Think of the coming "War on Christmas." Think of all the bile directed toward the extinct Fairness Doctrine, which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed in 1987.

The Obama administration has said it won't bring it back, but that didn't stop conservative legislators from introducing, and prodding their colleagues in Congress to pass, legislation to stop the Fairness Doctrine from being re-instituted -- and then claiming victory.

What would be even more gratifying than to ban an extinct policy would be if the people railing against it had a better idea of that policy against which they campaigned. Because if they truly understood the Fairness Doctrine, then they wouldn't go around using it as a justification for opposing Net Neutrality -- the idea that the companies which run the telecom networks to your house shouldn't play favorites. The two ideas are polar opposites.

The Fairness Doctrine is one of those hot-button issues sure to raise right-wing temperatures, from the most prominent broadcasting bloviator to the most rabid obscure web site. For the conservatives, the Fairness Doctrine is a government plot to curb right-wing radio. Glenn Beck told his audience that, "They are going to do everything they can to silence our voices." "They" of course are the Obama administration and Congressional allies, who have said they won't bring it back. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who introduced the legislation to ban the Fairness Doctrine, said, "Democrats want to impose an unfair doctrine that destroys talk radio and silences the voices of millions of Americans who disagree with their vision for America." As a general matter, it's a shame that "fairness" has become such a pejorative expression to conservatives and it's too bad that in their paranoia they view any discussion of bringing the views of progressives or liberals to the mass media as a plot to shut them up.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell was one of the first to suggest that Net Neutrality is a latter-day version of the Fairness Doctrine, thus combining one flash point with another in a speech in January when he said the Fairness Doctrine "could be intertwined into other communications policy initiatives that are more certain to move through the system, such as localism, diversity or net neutrality."

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) picked up the theme more recently. Kim Hart reported in The Hill on Blackburn's October 20 speech in which Blackburn said, "Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet."

The Fairness Doctrine was an affirmative obligation given to broadcasters by the FCC. As then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1969 Red Lion opinion upholding the Doctrine, "The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage."

In its original 1949 order setting out the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC said that broadcasters needed to play a "conscious and positive role in bringing about balanced presentation of the opposing viewpoints."

Net Neutrality is different. Perhaps the best legal expression of Net Neutrality so far was the condition the Commission imposed in its 2007 order approving the AT&T takeover of BellSouth. The FCC said the new giant company had agreed "not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination."

Another version is the legislation (HR 3458) introduced by Reps. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA). Their bill provides, in part that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shall "not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet." ISPs also could not "provide or sell to any content, application, or service provider, including any affiliate provider or joint venture, any offering that prioritizes traffic over that of other such providers on an Internet access service."

Net Neutrality, then, is the polar opposite of the Fairness Doctrine. One, the Fairness Doctrine, requires active participation by a broadcaster in determining content. The other, Net Neutrality, requires the service provider to stay out of the way. Is that a "government mandate?" as some conservatives claim? Perhaps. But it's a mandate to let traffic flow without attempting to judge the worth of one person's traffic over another. They have no relation to one another. People who opposed, and oppose, the Fairness Doctrine should support Net Neutrality.

That said, however, what both ideas have in common is the notion, which goes back to the beginnings of our telecommunications law, that the interests of the public trump those of businesses or government. The idea that clear in the earliest days of broadcasting, just as it should be clear today. Herbert Hoover said in 1925 that there has to be a "public benefit" to broadcasting. U.S. Supreme Court Justice White in the Red Lion opinion also, said: "It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

That's why when DeMint and his colleagues had it backwards when their legislation to prohibit the Fairness Doctrine is called the "Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009." Under our system, the freedom of the public trumps the freedom of broadcasters. In the Internet age, we can do nothing less. The freedom of the public to hear what it wants to hear, to see what it wants to see, and to create what it wants to create should not be subject to the business plans of the telephone and cable companies. That's what our traditions and laws demand; that's what the public deserves. That's why Net Neutrality is so important.

 

Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artbrodsky

Comments

[Brett Glass]

The truth is that "Network Neutrality" truly is nothing but the Fairness Doctrine repackaged for the Internet age. It insists that every application -- no matter how wasteful or abusive of the network -- get equal treatment, even though this may cause new, innovative, or time-critical ones not to work. It insists that every Web site run at equal speed, when this is simply impossible to begin with (sites buy different amounts of bandwidth, and you can't deliver a site faster than it can supply the data). It insists that "bits are bits" when in fact some bits really do need priority.

The fallacious argument that "The idea that a communications medium, any medium, exists to serve the public, is at the core of our communications laws" neglects to mention that unlike the public airwaves, communications networks are 100% privately created and owned. They're not a public resource and do not exist to "serve the public" (in fact, many of them -- such as corporate fiber networks -- are entirely private). Thus, this argument -- which, in fact, was originally made to support the Fairness Doctrine -- holds no water in the case of the Internet.

The same political forces that favored the now-discredited Fairness Doctrine when it was first instated many years ago are now pushing for "Network Neutrality" regulation, hoping that the public will not recognize that it amounts to the same thing. And, now that their game plan is exposed, they are denying it.

Art, thou protesteth

[puddinman]

Net Neutrality and The Fairness Doctrine are basically the same thing. They both seek to control what private industry can do. For example, if I own a broadcasting company, I should have the right to broadcast whatever I want to on it. If people like it, and it makes money, then I get to keep owning my company. If not, I lose my company. Simple.

The same applies to the case where I own an internet service company. If I own a Christian oriented ISP and decide to filter out pornography or other objectionable content, that should be my right. If there is a market for it and people want to buy it, then so be it. If not, I won't own it for long.

Amazing how the free market works, huh? What is scary for liberals is the fact that people like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are popular enough to remain on the air. If they weren't widely supported, they wouldn't be on the air anymore. Just ask Al Franken and his friends at Air America. Don't worry too much though . . . you still have Michael Moore (for whatever that's worth)!

[MikeNice]

Do you know what an ISP is? It does not sound like you do. It sounds as though you think an ISP is a website.

The free market does not apply to ISPs, as most of them have local contracts (monopolies) and operate as utilities. They are natural monopolies, as we can't have 100 cables snaking through every neighborhood, which should leave them open to regulation. For me, I only have the option of Comcast or Verizon FiOS. Wow, what competition!

As the law stands now they can prevent or slow access to any ip addresses (websites) they want, which they already admit they do.

[puddinman]

For someone who proposes to teach me about ISPs you gave a pretty off-base lesson. An ISP is a company that provides internet access to individuals for a price. That's it.

"As the law stands now . . ." Guess what, there is no law and that's how it should be. They own the servers you are using to access the internet and they should be able to make adjustments to the way their bandwidth is used for whatever legal purpose they want. I don't think there are many large companies that restrict access to ip addresses because that would kill their business. I personally use Time Warner and have NEVER had an issue accessing any website, even their competitors.

If you don't like the service you get, complain and/or take your business elsewhere. There are plenty of other companies that will give you unfiltered access to the internet, not just the ones you named. Heck, I live in a small town in South Texas and I have a lot more options than the ones you named. Most of these ISPs sell DSL services which use separate servers from, while still using the same physical lines as, your local phone company.

[cybexg]

The reason your argument fails is that the internet is a 1) cooperative structure, 2) participants KNOW this before becoming part of the net, 3) The ENTIRE premise of the net is based upon unimpeded information flow, 4) it is FAR more efficient to let the end consumer pick and choose dictate content.

Finally, just start your OWN network if you want to stop or impede the content that others may want.

[puddinman]

What you are failing to understand is that there is NO internet without the commercial enterprises that provide the bandwidth used to access it. We can't just all cooperate and communicate with each other and expect the internet to magically appear, can we? Of course not. The premise of the internet has nothing to do with the actual information that is exchanged on it, rather it's about creating an infrastructure upon which information CAN BE exchanged. The flow of information should be dictated by the bandwidth providers in response to the needs and desires of the consumers.

If you think about it, telling an ISP that they can't block access to their competitors is akin to telling Pizza Hut that can't stop Domino's from advertising in their own restaurants.

[zjr909]

Each time I read an article about net neutrality, I see fewer and fewer comments. This may well prove to be the single most devastating oversight yet on the part of the American people. We seem to be able to focus on only one thing, or at most two things, at a time. I've noticed already that since health care "reform" hit the news, the bank bailout all but vanished from the people's awareness. The continuing round of foreclosures is apparently reminding people of it, because it's back in the news. Unfortunately, net neutrality is one of those things that most people will not even think about until it's been dead for a good while and they begin to discover they can no longer reach websites they used to be able to. But as long as people can reach the right-wing websites, there'll be no strong public opposition until it's way too late and we find ourselves stranded in an information blind alley. The FISA flak last year should have alerted people that the telecommunications giants do not have the public's best interest at heart. There's absolutely nothing to indicate they would have any qualms about dictating who can view what on the internet. Only net neutrality can keep them at bay.

[blackrome]

If Repugs understood basic politics they wouldn't be Republicans.

If your not a millionaire there is really no reason to ever vote Republican.

But of course they don't know that.

[LeftRight]

I've been getting into it on another site where one guy doesn't seem to grasp the idea that net neutrality has, in its various forms, been in existence since the early days of PHONE service.

In other words, we see that the government has a LOOOOOOOOO­NNNNNNNNNN­GGGGGGGGG history of net neutrality with GREAT success, and no abuse. On the other hand, the ISPs have a short history without net neutrality (about four years...) and already there's been THOUSANDS of complaints about HUNDREDS of times that they've blocked or slowed content that challenged them!

[Poboy]

I think the fairness doctrine should be reinstated to prohibit the Clear Channels and Fox News from piping out propaganda day in and day out to the harm of the public.

I think net neutrality is small thinking, trying to lock in the status quo of having service providers be the intermediary between the internet and the user. I think of the internet being like the interstate highway system. The government provided the highways, but then the providers provided access ramps to the highway and charged access to the government created highway.

We should be fighting for free access ramps to our highways, the internets.

[LeftRight]

Wow..... I think that you're a tr0//, because NO ONE on the left is saying that we want to silence Fox News or Clear Channel.

You're ALSO a tr0// because you think that the on and off ramps to the interstate highway system were built by private industry...... They were PART of the system from day one.....

[TrainSeller]

Poboy, what allows Clear Channel and Fox so much air time is the removal of restrictions on the number of media outlets that can be owned by a single entity. Because Clear Channel can accumulate such a huge collection of radio stations, they have a "louder" voice than anyone else. That was not addressed by the Fairness Doctrine. The First Amendment gives them the right to say what they say; it shouldn't be extended to allowing them to own the airwaves.

LeftRight, you misunderstood Poboy's analogy regarding the Interstate highway system. What he said was that the way the Internet works, it is as if the government had built the highways and left the access ramps to private industry to finance and build. It's an apt analogy for the Internet: the government (DARPA) built the highway then left it to private industry (Cox, Comcast, Time-Warner, et al.) to build the access and profit from it. In some countries, Internet access is treated as a utility like water or electricity and, in some cases, is provided free of charge to all citizens.

[Poboy]

Thank You. I tried to respond but because of the censors couldn't.