Coming Clean on Net Neutrality

[Commentary] I'm relieved that network neutrality's opponents have finally come clean. Sort of. For years, a lineup of phone and cable industry mouthpieces had called network neutrality "a solution in search of a problem." The principle that prevents online censorship and blocking by service providers is irrelevant, they claimed, as these companies would never lift a finger to harm the open Internet. But then they changed their tune.

Especially since January’s federal appeals court ruling overturning the Net Neutrality rules -- phone and cable company proxies are saying that the problem does exist, but that it's not really a problem after all. "Payola (paying radio stations directly for extra airplay) ... is frequently derided by those who misunderstand it, but it actually helps new artists break through," argue Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne in a Wired commentary. "Sponsored data and other prioritization arrangements on the Internet are just a further extension of this." (To Szoka and Manne's credit, they do run a disclaimer at the end of the article. The writers apparently receive their own payola, in the form of checks from network providers.)

In any case, the new industry rhetoric assumes three things:

1. Giving ISPs the right to block and filter Internet content is a good thing.
2. The whole network is simply a business model; one that's ripe for exploitation by access providers.
3. Internet users should simply trust companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast to protect the open Internet.

That point one directly contradicts point three is cause for concern. The debate against Net Neutrality is filled with such inconsistency.

[Timothy Karr is Senior Director of Strategy, Free Press]