This article is more than 1 year old

Yes, Obama has got some things wrong on the internet. But so has the GOP

Republicans need to think, not just oppose

Intellectual property and freedom of speech

Cruz is also right when he argues "our constitutional rights are digital rights, too," and highlights the failed Stop Online Piracy (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property (PIPA) Acts as pieces of legislation that would have regulated speech on the internet "under the guise of protecting property rights."

He highlights that online activists managed to mobilize and defeat those proposed laws, but points out, correctly, that people "must remain vigilant." He continues: "Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated."

You will find few folks, except those with intellectual property interests, to disagree with this sentiment.

In Cruz's handling of net neutrality and the IANA contract transition, however, his clear perspective is lost in partisan rhetoric, carefully developed by the very interests he abhors: big business lobbyists and professional Washington-ites. The result is contradictory and inconsistent arguments.

It is also with regard to the IANA transition that Crovitz's Wall Street Journal article confuses partisan politics with policy, and adopts an anti-Obama stance that causes him to ignore the fact that his concerns are already being addressed.

On the key issue of net neutrality, Cruz claims that it is "Obamacare for the internet". That soundbite is guaranteed to get attention but risks turning a critical policy decision into a divisive partisan issue. Obama's public statement in favor of moving cable companies under so-called Title II legislation - effectively making internet access a public utility - was unexpected and sparked a huge debate over the topic.

That debate provides Cruz with a real opportunity but his approach so far has been to force it into a political direction. That will make it increasingly difficult for Democrats to disagree with Obama on the substance of what he suggests. And it sets up an unnecessary fight, taking the issue away from where it should be, which is: how do we create the best possible environment for internet access in the United States?

Title II problems

Putting cable companies under Title II has some major problems. For one, more than 90 per cent of the 1934 legislation would need to be junked almost immediately because it is simply out-of-date. Even advocates agree with that unfortunate fact.

Then there is the fact that it would go against the very underpinnings of the internet: the network was built and run and is owned by private companies connecting together. The amount of government-owned internet infrastructure is minimal, not just in the US but globally. Putting this network under Title II is an enormous shift in control and ownership that would raise doubts in even the most left-leaning of Democrats - if they were provided with a sensible policy discussion.

Then there is the fact that Obama has effectively attempted an end-run around the democracy he is sworn to uphold. On an issue as important and impactful as shifting the country's entire infrastructure under a different ownership structure, a two-minute video is not how democracy should work.

The President has a bully pulpit and should use it to embarrass the machinery of government into action. Making precise policy recommendations is, however, the job of civil servants with the necessary specialist knowledge.

But what Cruz highlights is not the reality but the fear. Net neutrality "would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices."

This is simply not true. No one is seriously arguing that the parts of Title II that gave the US government the right to dictate telephone prices in 1930s America be transferred to the vastly more complex and sophisticated networks of 2014. Cruz undermines his message by arguing, quite unnecessarily, that things that won't happen might.

Nonetheless there is of course a good reason why there are many advocates for the Title II approach and that is simply that consumers are fearful that cable companies will start taking away the very thing they most value: unfettered access to online goods and services - and all for a quick buck. Type II would remove that ability unequivocally, which is why it is so appealing to many.

The very same "mom-and-pop online retailers" that Cruz identifies as needing protection from online sales taxes are the people that would be hit hardest by cable companies using their exclusive access to captive audiences and maximize profits. President Obama will be gone in two years, but the net neutrality decision will impact the internet economy for decades to come.

If Cruz really wants to act as a thought leader he should devise a way that gives people what they want out of Title II without forcing the vibrant modern network into arcane legislation. If the Republicans can strike a deal with the cable companies that protects small companies and consumers by removing any profit incentive from limiting their access to each other, then that is a deal everyone should be able to sign up to.

More about

More about

More about

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like