Anti Net Neutrality Crowd Reaches Deep For The Craziest Possible Response To President Obama's Call For Real Net Neutrality Rules

from the and-the-competition-is-on dept

During President Obama’s official visit to China today, the White House issued a statement of support of government regulation of the Internet with the classification of broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act from 1934. The symbolism of this statement appearing while President Obama is in China could not be more Orwellian. The Chinese internet is everything that we don’t want in the US: state ownership of the enterprises that comprises the Internet, its infrastructure, content, and connectivity; top-down regulation of every aspect of the Internet experience; and government collusion with industry to create Internet companies. Should the US take the route of reclassifying broadband under Title II as Obama suggests, it would bring the the US dangerously closer to the Chinese model where the internet is “government allowed”.



Title II is not only bad news for the US, but for the rest of world. Indeed foreign authoritarian governments have been looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of net neutrality and the “Open Internet”. Obama’s announcement could not be a better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Russia.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Well, we already wrote about President Obama's somewhat surprising decision to come outin favor of Title II reclassification for broadband (with strong forbearance) to setup some real net neutrality rules. We also covered the unhappy response from the big broadband players who are just repeating the same talking points from the past year, claiming that they'll suddenly stop investing in broadband and how this will kill the internet (ignoring that they already rely on Title II for a number of things, including internet infrastructure).But the real fun is coming from the politicians and the pundits who seem to be trying to out-crazy each other in coming up with theanalogy/description of what Title II means for the internet and the world. The one getting the most attention has to be Senator Ted Cruz who declared net neutrality "Obamacare for the internet." It's not, of course. Not even close. Matthew Inman, over at TheOatmeal has penned a fantastic response to Cruz , explaining the basics of what net neutrality is really about, and why it's just ridiculous to claim it's "Obamacare for the internet." You should read the whole thing, because it's much funnier than just this snippet (and you'll also understand the crab taco reference), but here's a snippet:But, honestly, the "Obamacare" line was just one of many crazy comparisons. Here's Fox legal analyst Andrew Napolitano calling it "Orwellian" (I'd embed the video, but apparently MediaMatters still doesn't realize how to use SSL, so we can't) to refer to it as "net neutrality" saying that it's really about taking "the choice of buyers and sellers out of the market." And that's in response to Fox's Stuart Varney claiming (incorrectly) that the President's proposal is "one speed for all, one price for all." Neither of those statements are even close to true. There is nothing in the proposal that involves "one price for all" or "one speed for all." It's just about setting up a system where a broadband provider cannotand favor their own services over another's. It's the kind of thing you'dthe guys atwould appreciate, given that one of their main competitors, MSNBC, isHow do you think Fox's Napolitano and Varney would feel about Comcast slowing down access to Fox's videos and websites while pushing those visitors to visit MSNBC instead?And if that wasn't crazy enough, let's take it up another notch. We got an unsolicited "statement of Roslyn Layton" in response to President Obama's proposal. I have no idea who "Roslyn Layton" is and, and frankly, have no interest in doing the Google search to find out, but I know plenty from the fact that she's actually claiming that this new plan tois somehow aExcept that's the opposite of fact. A plan that specifically calls for "no blocking, no throttling, increased transparency and no paid prioritization." Does thatsound like a plan from China, Iran and Russia? Does Layton thinkthinks that statement is even within the same area code as the truth? While some others are making similar statements , they at least admit that those countries will use "any action" by the US government as a supposed defense for seeking to regulate the internet.But that includesrules that would be put forth, including the rules under Section 706. So the fact that Russia, China and Iran would lie and totally misrepresent what rules under Title II mean doesn't magically mean that Title II would give them any extra cover.And that's because it's simply wrong that Title II is "regulating the internet." As we've explained many times, there are legitimate concerns about using Title II -- but these complaints above are hysterical and simply wrong. And by being so hyperbolic and apoplectic, they're actually doing their side a disservice. Anyone who actually knows what's going on knows for a fact that rules under Title II aren't anywhere near as problematic as all of these claims are making it out to be.Taking clear rules that are designed to keep the internetandandshouldn't be seen as a partisan issue (a la Cruz) or "regulating the internet." It's not. It's about defining the rules under whichmust agree to operate -- to keep the internet itself free from dangerous interference by gatekeepers who have a long history of interfering. It's certainly not about supporting totalitarian censorship-happy regimes, but the exact opposite. It's about making sure that everyone can get their message or service out there, and not worrying about having a giant broadband player block access over its last mile monopoly.To take an issue that is about keeping the internet open and free, and pretending it's going to lead to a censored and "Orwellian" internet is just ridiculous and wrong.Reacting like this just makes everyone making such claims look really, really silly.

Filed Under: andrew napolitano, net neutrality, roslyn layton, stuart varney, ted cruz, title ii