Commentary: How better politics make a stronger and more open Internet


Americans don’t agree on much these days — but everyone knows our politics isn’t working.

Even the simplest of issues are no match for the spinmeisters, and policy argument has been replaced by viral meme. It’s a plague that undermines the very idea of meeting in the middle that has been fundamental to our progress.

And the open internet appears to be its next target.

Internet openness – or neutrality – is a foundation of the economic, social and cultural success of the online ecosystem. It ensures broadband providers don’t block access to lawful websites, throttle traffic, or harmfully discriminate against apps or services online.

Two years ago, the FCC enshrined these basic principles into law. And while there was a healthy debate over the need for regulation – since the internet was already open and working well – the basic principles of openness and neutrality were not controversial.

What was controversial, however, was a related decision by the FCC to “reclassify” broadband service as a “Title II” utility to increase the FCC’s authority. That was not necessary to protect net neutrality but it gave the FCC new power over the growing broadband economy.

But that overreach has now backfired in a massive and deeply unfortunate way.

New leadership at the FCC has voted to move forward with plans to reverse itself and undo the unpopular “Title II” decision, a wise move to ensure the internet holds onto its “permissionless innovation” culture and can continue to grow and expand.

But in the polarized and irrational Washington culture wars, some fringe voices seem determined to use the repeal of Title II to also destroy net neutrality – opposing bipartisan action to keep the net neutrality baby in place while the Title II bathwater is drained out.

It’s no surprise conservatives have always opposed intrusive Title II regulation. But many on the left opposed Title II as well.

The NAACP and Communications Workers of America have argued it would undermine network investment and eliminate jobs that are particularly valuable to workers of color. Others warned it would drive up consumer costs and threaten pro-consumer innovations like free data plans.

And now two years in, we see investment running flat at some ISPs and one study found a $4 billion investment drop in just the first two years of Title II. And many experts predict far deeper investment cutbacks yet to come.

So, the FCC is on strong footing repealing the dangerous Title II – but only if the popular and important net neutrality principles remain in place.

Some activists on the left, however, seem determined to gin up a firestorm around this issue that will make a bipartisan net neutrality replacement difficult. Even though they nominally support an open internet, these absolutists seem determined to exploit the complexity of this debate to tar anyone who opposes Title II as an enemy of net neutrality.

That kind of all-or-nothing rhetoric is great for fundraising and building email lists. But it’s a disaster for policy – and for the vital project of keeping the internet open.

This is a moment where real compromise and progress should be possible. As the FCC repeals Title II and embarks on an uncertain new process, everyone has something to lose – which also means everyone has something to gain. Fertile ground for Congress to step in and solve the problem once and for all.

An open internet statute would permanently lock in a signature achievement of the Obama years for progressives, while giving business the certainty and predictability conservatives have championed.

It’s a moment of truth for the activists and meme brokers and even the late-night comics who say they care about the issues – not just ratings and clicks. Will they seize the moment and support forward looking action?

Or will they burn down net neutrality just to have someone to blame when the next election rolls around?

Lewis is executive director of the Progressive Policy Institute.

Lewis is executive director of the Progressive Policy Institute.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Viewpoints: Access questions remain for police body cameras
Viewpoints: Access questions remain for police body cameras

Police body-worn cameras are a tool used more and more by law enforcement agencies to curb the use of force, hold officers accountable, and build community trust through transparency. That’s why police officers and the Austin community pushed for and anxiously awaited the day the Austin Police Department equipped its officers with body-worn cameras...
Commentary: Unmasking the failure of empire in Puerto Rico
Commentary: Unmasking the failure of empire in Puerto Rico

Even before Hurricane Maria came to the shores of Puerto Rico, it was an island in economic, political and cultural crises. The Commonwealth government was bankrupt, hundreds of schools were closed, all public services were drastically cut, and Uncle Sam imposed a non-elected Fiscal Control Board, not to protect and ensure domestic wellbeing, but to...
Herman: New rules would restrict grave decorations at city cemeteries
Herman: New rules would restrict grave decorations at city cemeteries

The Austin Parks and Recreation Department on Thursday released long-awaited proposed new rules for the five city-owned cemeteries. Four years is long, right? Even in the cemetery biz. And Tonja Walls-Davis, the city cemetery manager, expects the proposed rules, including tight restrictions on grave decorations, will draw the same kind of objections...
Herman: Caution, free speech might offend you
Herman: Caution, free speech might offend you

It seems that some of our elected officials du jour (see Trump, Donald J., and Abbott, Gregory W.) sometimes have a problem with the whole free speech thing. So it’s comforting that one of our local appointed officials doesn’t. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, himself sometimes accused of courtroom free speechifying in ways that challenge...
Letters to the editor: Oct. 20, 2017

Re: Oct. 17 commentary, “Let’s view science as a powerful tool, not as a threat.” Professors Michael Starbird and Jay Banner encourage universities to engage the public in the appreciation of science. It is dangerous, they rightfully state, to develop energy or public health policies not based on the best scientific information, and...
More Stories