This week's guest at Heritage was FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, ready to give an answer to one of my biggest questions: what's a responsible conservative to do when an oligopoly makes real competition impossible?
"Net neutrality," Commissioner McDowell pointed out, is something of a Rorschach term. (No, not that Rorschach.) Depending on who's using it, and in what context, it can mean anything from nationalizing internet infrastructure to a simple requirement for content neutrality.
McDowell discussed his dissent in the FCC's ruling on the Comcast/BitTorrent affair. His argument was accurate, so far as it goes: peer-to-peer file transfers use a lot of bandwidth, and the FCC's decision requires service providers to treat all content equally. At heart, McDowell said, it's really just a network management issue: "For the first time, unelected bureaucrats are making engineering decisions for the Internet."
It's tempting to fall back on our old friend Let The Market Decide. After all, if Comcast throttles BitTorrent traffic, the BitTorrent folks use a different ISP, Comcast loses market share, and eventually it changes policy. Voila: market signals triumph, seed rates soar, and everyone gets a pony.
But it's not a free market.
Most Americans are confronted with a duopoly (at best) when choosing broadband providers, and the infrastructure is so expensive that it's hard to break into the market. Without meaningful competition, consumers can't push for better service. I can get my high-speed Internet from Comcast, with all its attendant issues, or I can use dial-up.
The FCC made the right decision, ultimately, writing in its press release:
The Commission concluded that Comcast’s network management practices discriminate among applications rather than treating all equally and are inconsistent with the concept of an open and accessible Internet. Indeed, the Commission noted that Comcast has an anticompetitive motive to interfere with customers’ use of peer-to-peer applications.
If the concern is bandwidth usage, that's easily solved. ISPs have begun to charge extra for more bandwidth, and Vint Cerf, grandfather of the Internet, suggests transmission rate caps. This is a fine idea, and would let ISPs prevent bottlenecks without compromising users' data.
Call it "net regulation" if you want -- I suppose it is, technically -- but mandated content neutrality protects the customer without hurting competition. Although FCC Chair Kevin Martin acted as though the agency had the power to enforce content neutrality, it's not entirely clear that it does. Commissioner McDowell certainly doesn't think so.
Where am I in this mess? All I want is a Congressional clarification that the FCC does have the authority to enforce content neutrality. Give me that and I'll man the anti-regulation barricades with my ideological brethren. I'll even bring the tricolour.
This past Tuesday in New York I participated in a press conference to help launch a bipartisan coalition, InternetforEveryone.org. The coalition is a groundbreaking initiative to make access to a fast, open and affordable Internet a basic right for all Americans.
The diverse group of Internet enthusiasts is unified under four basic principles:
1. Access: Every home and business in America must have access to a high-speed, world-class communications infrastructure.
2. Choice: Every consumer must enjoy real competition in lawful online content, as well as among high-speed Internet providers, to achieve lower prices and higher speeds.
3. Openness: Every Internet user should have the right to freedom of speech and commerce online in an open market without gatekeepers or discrimination.
4. Innovation: The Internet should continue to create good jobs, foster entrepreneurship, spread new ideas and serve as a leading engine of economic growth.
You can watch/embed/share the full press conference (33 minutes) via YouTube. A search on Google News for InternetforEveryone.org, will give you a number of press "clips" from sources on the event.
As one of the only Republicans in the coalition (Vint Cerf of Google is a registered Republican), I believe it's crucial for Republicans to embrace a national broadband strategy. Here's a short clip from the press event of me outlining my position:
As a Republican it is common sense why Republicans would support ensuring national access and availability to a high-speed Internet connection. The reason is that over 50 percent of Americans -- primarily dominated by rural/Appalachia America -- are forced to still use an inferior dial-up service to access the Internet. That's more than 10M households.
Rural Americans are our kind of voters and John McCain needs these voters to compete on Election day (and fighting for him in the trenches in the modern world).
In fact, as recently reported by the non-partisan Center for Rural Strategies, John McCain leads Barack Obama among rural voters by 50-41. Of note, this is the same margin found four years ago between George W. Bush and John Kerry and Bush went on to win the rural vote by 19 percentage points.
In other words, right now Republicans aren't fielding a full team on the field of the modern game. A huge segment of our voting bloc is forced to receive their news from mainstream media and talk radio outlets -- effectively keeping them out of the online fight.
If Republicans want to catch up with Democrats online it is essential that we ensure every American have an equal opportunity to access a high-speed Internet connection - even those that enjoy living in rural America.
I believe that to ensure national access we will need a public-private partnership to do so. If we wait for the ISPs to wire America, we're likely going to be waiting for a very long time because the cost-benefit of building up the infrastructure does not outweigh the financial interests of the ISPs. I get that which is why I believe the government will need to creatively encourage the market or free-up available spectrum white spaces to do so.
Whether or not we'll be able to wire rural America by 2008 is unclear. However, we can start the discussion now and hope that John McCain and other key Republicans take this issue up in the very near future. The sake of our party catching up online depends on it.
“A lot of people on the right who don’t favor Net Neutrality, or are skeptical of it, are worried that it’s going to lead to regulating Internet providers as common carriers the way that you regulate the telephone companies and that that’s a bad idea.
“I understand the point but the fact is that most of them are common carriers, the telephone company that provides my DSL certainly are already. And the genius of the Internet has been that it is a level playing field. When you go to visit my site, when you go to visit the New York Times site, when you go to visit MoveOn.org or whatever, they’re sort of all out there in the same place and you can seemlessly go from one to another and that really does elevate the little guy.
“And the concern, which I think is completely legitimate, is that if big sites can engage in what’s basically payola for better treatment people will start visiting them more because they load faster and start paying less attention to troublesome little guys such as myself because our sites don’t load as well, don’t display as well, and don’t play on the same field.”
For the context of these words and more, check out Karr's post.
As always, a disclosure that I'm actively working with the Open Internet Coalition to help promote a free and open Internet. Natch.
I usually get to go to the Heritage bloggers briefing, and I always enjoy it. Today, though, I learned something shocking: apparently, there are conservatives who aren't in favor of net neutrality.
This just doesn't make any sense. The story of the Internet is the prime example of how markets are supposed to work: anyone can enter, and the best ideas, content, and products win out. If I have a brilliant idea, I'll be wildly successful (Google); if I have a terrible idea, I'll fail miserably (Pets.com).
I can put anything on the Internet, because there are no gatekeepers on content. I still have to find viewers, but if I provide a better product, I'll get them. The only advantage that established companies have is their brand recognition and that doesn't stick around for long. What search engine did you use before Google? Do you even remember?
So why do we need net neutrality legislation? Because this entire paradigm -- all the innovation this delicate balance of market forces can foster -- is now threatened.
When Good ISPs Go Bad: A Cautionary Tale
Say my ISP wants to make an extra buck. MySpace offers them ten million dollars to speed up connections to MySpace and slow down connections to Facebook. Later on, I want to waste some time on the web. MySpace is so much faster than Facebook, so I'm going to do it there instead. Now my decision is based on who paid my ISP more, not the content of the site. This hurts my ability to make choices, and the quality of the goods on the market.
Now my ISP has found this blog post complaining about their relationship with MySpace. They're not pleased, so they decide to prevent their customers from accessing TechRepublican. (Great Firewall of China, anyone?)
A few weeks later, my ISP announces that it's got a fantastic new advance: documents and e-mails will travel much faster than before, at the expense of YouTube videos -- the folks using YouTube are probably just procrastinating. Businesses and grandmothers are happy, but there's a problem. To do this, my ISP has to be able to see what's inside my packets. It's reading my data.
This is all legal.
Opponents of net neutrality say I might be protected from some of these abuses by existing anti-trust laws, though at the Heritage briefing former Clinton aide Mike McCurry wasn't quite sure. Anti-trust law, however, won't make sure that ISPs do what they're supposed to: treat all packets equally.
Mr. McCurry thinks we should develop "smart pipes," as opposed to the "dumb pipes" we have now. (Doesn't he know it's a series of tubes?) The goal is to make sure that important information can travel more quickly. Unfortunately, there's only one way to do this: deep packet inspection. "Smart pipes" only work by inspecting the data that travels through them, and that only works by violating our privacy.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!" net neutrality opponents assure us, and after all, no one would ever dream of using our private information against us. Really, we should just sit back, relax, and let all the innovation be strangled out of the marketplace. Also, I got this really great offer from the Prime Minister of Nigeria. All he needs is my bank information...
Net neutrality legislation isn't regulation for the Internet. It allows for a level playing field that lets the Internet work as a model of free market efficiency. And that's something every conservative can get behind.
Today I had an opportunity to meet and have a candid conversation with Carly Fiorina, the former head of HP, who is currently serving as the RNC's Victory Chair. Issues covered in the interview include her new role in support of John McCain and the Republican Party, Barack Obama's success on the Internet, McCain's strong opposition to Internet taxation, Net Neutrality/Open Internet, and her personal use of technology.
David All: Ok, it’s DAVID ALL with TechRepublican. I’m here with CARLY FIORINA the new Victory Chairman for the Republican National Committee. And what exactly is that Carly?
Carly Fiorina: Well, it turns out that my role really is to advocate for both JOHN MCCAIN and for the Republican Party. And to make sure that as many Americans as possible understand why this is the Party of the future and why John McCain is the right man to be President of the United States.
DA: Absolutely. A few quick questions. Do you have an iPhone or a blackberry?
CF: I have two blackberry’s actually. My husband is an iPhone man so we kind of having dueling technology in the house.
DA: Very interesting. And are you a Mac user or do you stick to HP?
CF: No I’m still an HP user I have to say, although the Mac is a beautiful, wonderful piece of machinery so we may get there one of these days.
DA: Very interesting. Well I actually wrote about you and Meg Whitman joining the team as a real great sign that some strong women who are Republicans are taking a very active role and a very vocal role in John McCain’s campaign. If you can just talk to me a little bit about what it means to be a female and at the top of the Party as you are, and possibly going up against Hillary Clinton and what that could mean?
CF: Well I’ve been a Republican all my life and I’ve been with John McCain on this campaign for the last 15 months. And I first met him in 2000 not associated with his campaign but on the subject of Internet taxation. And I think one of the things that is very important in this campaign is first, that the American people understand that John McCain wants the best and the brightest around him – and if we’re women so much the better – but I think it’s also really important for the Republican Party to reach out to more women – to reach out to all aspects of American society – because we need more than die-hard Republicans to win this election and I think John McCain is the man who can reach out.
DA: Very interesting. And when you were named Fortune named you what, the “Top Woman,” what was the actual title in 1998?
CF: For six years running I was what Fortune Magazine called the “Most Powerful Woman in Business…”
DA: And you didn’t like that right?
CF: I shouldn’t say it that way. Look, it was a tremendous honor, and I think highlighting successful women in business is hopefully an inspiration to others. But on the other hand, the point I made then was if you have one list for women, then what you’re basically saying is that business is like tennis or golf or some other kind of sport. You know, there’s the women’s ladder and there’s the men’s ladder. And business is better – politics is better – if everybody gets to play, so there shouldn’t be a special list for women.
DA: Very interesting. One issue I want to address quickly is what I call the Long Tail of Politics and the Long Tail of Fundraising. Of course this is off of Chris Anderson’s idea and Barack Obama is really tapping in to these folks who have never contributed money before and they’re giving in low contributions. How do you intend to help navigate John McCain toward that direction?
CF: Well first of all we have a very experienced and top-notch fundraising team and I have to say right up front that I’m not a fundraiser so I’m not the expert here. But what I would say is that it’s pretty clear that Barack Obama has done a fantastic job of tapping in to a whole new set of interested parties and in using technology to help him do that. And so we have to do more and more of that. I think it’s fair to say that we have work to do and John McCain says that but it’s also fair to say that we are using technology more and more creatively and aggressively here. So there is a lot going on with search engine marketing for example, and search engine optimization on the campaign. There were some cute things that were done by the RNC around eCards, Valentine’s Day for example. We do more and more in terms of Facebook independence. So we’re doing the right things, we need to do more of them, and I think we need to give Barack Obama his due and say he’s done a brilliant job and we can all learn from it.
DA: Fantastic. One issue I want to talk about is policy. Our community cares about technology-related issues. One issue, which is starting to bubble up more and more, is the issue of Net Neutrality and an Open Internet. I wonder if you had a position on that issue?
CF: Well let me broaden the question slightly because it’s relevant to why I’m supporting John McCain. Innovation is what grows economies. Innovation is what creates jobs. It’s always been true. But sometimes, some people forget that. And innovation can be fostered or it can be inhibited. The reason I went to meet with John McCain in the year 2000 many years ago on the subject of Internet taxation was to make the case that we can’t tax innovation. And John McCain “got it” immediately. He has since said that we ought to ban permanently taxation on the Internet or taxation on mobile technologies, etc. Now why is all that relevant? It’s relevant because if we are going to grow our economy, which is vital, particularly when you look at the jobs reports we’ve seen over the last couple days, then we have to be fostering innovative technologies and we have to be focused on policies that incent and reward innovation. And so that’s the context that I look at Net Neutrality in. Sorry for the long-winded answer, but I think that context is really important and we all know that where we talk a lot about free markets not all of our markets are free. And there are a variety of players today that impact on the Internet – cable companies as an example – I think it’s fair to say that we don’t have a completely free market on this issue today and so there’s some things that government could do to accelerate a true free-market.
DA: There’s a rumor going around saying that you may be in the hat for VP? Have you heard this?
CF: I don’t even think about that. Nobody else should either. The media loves to talk about the rumors of the moment. The media has been spending a lot of time talking about John McCain’s VP choice. John will make that decision when he is good and ready not before. At the very least, probably, I would guess, he’ll wait until we know who the opponent is on the other side. But look, I’m privileged to be able to make a difference I hope in electing a great man to be a great President. And as well, to help introduce the Republican Party to people who may not have thought about the Republican Party before and to invite people to this Party because I think this is the Party of innovation, and job creation, and growth. I think this is the Party of the future.
DA: Well that’s kind of a grandiose idea but let’s take a step back and if we can conclude here, if there’s one thing that you hope to accomplish that’s tangible, that you can reach out and grab, I mean you’re a CEO you have to do this stuff all the time, what would that be?
CF: We have to win in November that’s a really easy answer. We have to win the White House in November.
DA: Well there you go, there you have it. Well thanks very much and good luck and we’ll talk to you soon.
Another nugget from the TechCrunch interview with McCain's new victory chair, Carly Fiorina, deals with the issue of an Open Internet, a.k.a., Net Neutrality:
MA: A related issue is net neutrality, which is such an obscure topic for most of America but it’s a big touch point, as you know, in Silicon Valley. The Republicans seem to be on the side of stand off on the issue until we clearly see something go wrong. The Democrats, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are saying, hardcore, go at it, enact legislation to say net neutrality is law, and that’s just the way it has to be. Do you think there’s room on the Republican platform to take a more proactive approach ensuring a level playing field to all service providers?
CF: I think there’s room on the platform. I’m not making a prediction…
MA: I led you right to where I wanted you to go…
CF: Yea, I’m not making a prediction. John McCain has been very clear in saying that he would ban permanently taxation on the internet and taxation on mobile technologies, something the Democrats haven’t said by the way. And I think that he truly understands the role that these kinds of technologies play in growing the economy. But I don’t want to go much further than that because I haven’t had that conversation with him, but I would say that he has innovators at the heart of his policy making, as does the economic team.
While Carly does a good job of not answering the NN question directly, she does leave me wondering if it's possible that John McCain could come around on this critical issue. I plan on asking Carly about this issue directly if I can ever get an interview on the schedule.
[Disclosure: I actively support, and help consult for the Open Internet Coalition.]
Choosing Senator Obama for our Democrat endorsement was relatively easy. We had a lot more trouble with the Republicans. The trouble comes because, based on their positions on the issues, none of them are the perfect candidate. The leading candidates - Romney, Huckabee and McCain - all have flaws. And while Ron Paul won the TechCrunch primary by a very large margin, he too has flawed technology policies - not the least of which is that he is staunchly against net neutrality, and doesn’t want the FCC to get too involved with spectrum allocation rules.
The problems stem from Republicans’ general rule to “let the market decide,” which appeals to my libertarian leanings but can cause real problems in a monopoly-type markets. People tend to have few choices when it comes to Internet or mobile providers. In those cases using government to force a level playing field and open access is what actually stimulates economic growth. Republicans also tend to shy away from “green” issues such as pollution (carbon emissions), and alternative fuel research. Finally, their reluctance to get the Federal government involved directly in education means that they avoid issues like increasing math and science curriculums in public schools, or providing Federal funding or incentives to address the digital divide (in particular, getting computers and Internet into schools). Their resulting policies tend to put off technology focused voters.
Taking all of the Republican candidates positions into consideration, as well as TechCrunch reader voting, we are endorsing Senator McCain as the best candidate from that side of the aisle. Senator McCain, more so than any other Republican candidate, is at least willing to go on record on any issue we brought up in our interview with him.
He is standoffish on net neutrality, mobile spectrum rules and the digital divide. And he has voted against some bills to fund renewable energy research.
But he’s made it clear that he’ll address inequities that arise from his hands-off policies on net neutrality and mobile allocations, which other Republican candidates refuse to do. And his positions on Internet Taxes, H1-B visas, China/human rights violations and other issues are strongly pro-technology. Romney and, to a lesser extent Huckabee, by contrast, have shown little inclination to even discuss their position on these issues.
Senator McCain also has more pure leadership experience than any other candidate running for office. He is the elder statesman of the election, and that experience counts for something. Finally, his pro-business leanings will do much to promote the technology economy in the U.S.
Now, as an aside, McCain did say that he was “illiterate” when it comes to computers, which isn’t uncommon for his generation. His campaign has clarified that position somewhat since then, and it’s clear that McCain has surrounded himself with enough technically savvy individuals that he’s likely to avoid a “series of tubes” type comment down the road. Frankly, I don’t give a damn if McCain ever turns on a computer or not. I just want a president who has the right top-down polices to support the information economy or, as I said above, be smart enough to just get out of our way and let us do our thing.
Technology is becoming more and more a part of mainstream life. But the journalists who have access to the 2008 presidential candidates usually aren’t prepared to talk tech, and so the candidates’ positions on digital issues are often left unexplored. We want to change that, and have been reaching out to the presidential candidates to talk one-on-one with us about the issues that are important to our readers.
Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate for president, was the first to respond, and we will be recording a podcast discussion with him in the next week. What we talk about on that podcast is largely up to TechCrunch readers.
Snaps to Mitt for being first to take on the challenge and props to Arrington for playing a role in this important election.
So how can you get involved?
Arrington, in true Web 2.0 fashion, is asking his community what questions they want Mitt to answer:
We’re finalizing the high level questions we’ll be asking Governor Romney (and other candidates in the future). Please let us know in the comments what tech-related issues are important to you; what would you ask if you had the chance? Issues to think about:
* the role of technology in education - what role should government and technology companies have
* the growing digital divide in the U.S. and around the world
* immigration and visa issues
* the role of government in protecting personal privacy online
* Mobile spectrum allocations and ground rules
* How should the U.S. engage with China: technology, human rights and censorship issues
* the role of free markets; helping U.S. technology companies compete worldwide Net neutrality
* Intellectual property issues - copyright, patent and trademark policies
So what question do I hope Mitt answers? I'd prefer to find out where Mitt Romney is on Net Neutrality.
In case his staff needs some help with the issue, here's two conservative arguments both FOR and AGAINST the issue:
UPDATE: Verizon has reversed their decision and will allow NARAL to carry out their campaign.
Thanks to NARAL, we now know that texting isn't considered free speech. While I'm not sad to see a pro-choice group take a few knocks, this has repercussions for everyone.
The US is far behind Europe with our cell phone technology, so SMS or texting has yet to make the impact that it has across the pond. As more political parties and advocacy groups use newer communication technologies to carry controversial messages, we're reminded how much our laws need to catch up with technology.
The Times article points out that texting falls under the Net Neutrality debate that was highlighted here a few weeks ago with the conservative argument for and against it. Yet this Verizon decision takes the issue from a blogosphere debate to a real problem that campaigns face. What happens when you create a great texting plan and one of the largest US carriers refuses to accept it?
Do Republicans support First Amendment protection expanding to all technologies or do they fight government intrusion and hope that competition counters these types of policies?
Free markets and traditional values are the twin pillars of conservative thought. Ronald Reagan embodied both of these beliefs, and was a master at promoting both of these ideas. However, Reagan fully understood that a reflexive anti-regulatory, pro-market ideology does not always promote the core values of decency and family that are at the foundation of the conservative movement. He believed these ideas must exist in concert, not one at the expense of the other.
Corporate America has one priority: to maximize profits for their shareholders and executives. This is a noble and worthy goal, and has served our country and society well in terms of allocating resources and goods in a productive and rational way. A rational allocation of resources in a market economy is desirable in many ways, and markets unleashed from regulatory burden is usually a given.
However, when it comes to the media industry, it is important to remember that free markets can come at the expense of conservative values. The media conglomerates that control much of the entertainment and news landscape in our country are either agnostic, at best, or hostile, at worse, to the traditional family values that have brought so many of us into the conservative movement. The big three networks, the movie studios, and two of the three major national newspapers are all aligned politically and ideologically with forces outside of the mainstream family values that a majority of Americans share, particularly in the areas of sex and violence.
These media conglomerates continue to grow and exert greater and greater influence on the mass culture most Americans consume. They promote entertainment that rejects traditional values and embraces a coarse, crude ethic that is designed to enhance the bottom line, whether or not it raises the level of discourse in our society.
And corporate media is notoriously unfriendly to diversity of opinion, particularly on the right side of the political spectrum. Without the development of the Internet, right of center thought would have been pushed to the outer margins of the debate in the major media outlets, and our ability to change our country consistent with our beliefs would suffer.
This is what the net neutrality debate is really about, at its core: the ability of diverse voices and alternative views to continue to be heard, whether or not it is profitable for Viacom or Disney to air these views. It’s about the ability of conservative activists and candidates to communicate directly to our members and supporters without paying an additional toll to Verizon or AT&T.
These conglomerates, if they have their way, would be able to exercise their financial power to crowd out family-oriented, religious, and conservative entertainment and information that has flourished on the Internet as a result of its toll-free nature. If the Internet becomes a toll road, the voices with the deepest pockets will win.
That is the reason why the online pornography industry – a politically unpopular group – has been silent on the net neutrality debate. Commercial pornographers know that a pay-for-play Internet will be a boon for their industry. In this zero sum game, the pornographers gain will come at the expense of family-friendly voices on the Web.
Small, Christian online radio stations will lose the ability to provide their services as tolls become prohibitively expensive, and for these Mom and Pop operations, any added costs could close them down. Churches could lose the ability to webcast services to their congregations and beyond. And conservative grassroots organizations and candidates, who would have to pay increasing fees to the network operators like Verizon and AT&T, rather than using their resources for programs and mobilization.
Net neutrality is certainly not a partisan issue. Conservatives depend on diverse and underfunded foot soldiers to spread the word and build our grassroots force. Allowing big media to control our direct access to our activists would be a major blow against our movement, and would tilt the field in favor of the Hollywood-Manhattan media axis that is hostile to our values and our beliefs. It is critical for Republicans to understand the impact of this issue, and see beyond a narrow anti-regulatory focus. The stakes here are large, and the damage will be irreversible.
Another nugget from the 
Recent comments
14 hours 6 min ago
1 day 10 hours ago
2 days 8 hours ago
2 days 16 hours ago
2 days 22 hours ago
3 days 13 hours ago
3 days 20 hours ago
4 days 6 hours ago
5 days 8 hours ago
5 days 14 hours ago