The last several blog posts led to an interview on XM Radio’s POTUS 08 station – hopefully I’ll be able to post an audio file of the conversation soon.
Changing the subject, here’s an idea that’s bound to upset my friends in the media reform world: to advance net neutrality, support legislation banning the Fairness Doctrine from applying to the Internet.
This summer I oversaw an independent study with a graduate student at George Washington University. His final paper was an analysis of the network neutrality debate, drawing on work of people like Prof. Frank Buamgartner to explain where the debate is, how it got there and what happens next.
His analysis found that net neutrality has not been clearly defined and as such is stuck. There is no clear “about” or “abouts” over which people are arguing. Advocates on both sides claim to support freedom, innovation and openness and a number of policymakers on both sides have trouble articulating what net neutrality is and why it matters. Until those questions get resolved it is unlikely that net neutrality advocates will win.
Last week FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell argued that net neutrality mandates would lead to reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. This is, on its surface, absurd – the Fairness Doctrine mandates control of content while net neutrality prohibits control of content – yet absent clarity in the debate such claims can stand.
Here I should note that several Republican legislators are pushing legislation banning funding for any re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy rejected 20 years ago.
Bearing in mind my student’s observation, what if net neutrality advocates took McDowell seriously? What if they argued for legislation banning the imposition of the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet? Democrats would be promoting a “hands off” mandate, staking a claim that the Internet should be open and free for all. Net neutrality would be a provision in the legislation – if the government can’t play favorites, if the consumer should get to decide what a good argument is without artificial outside interference, shouldn’t the same rules apply to ISPs? Content providers should be allowed to produce content and get it to consumers, and consumers should be allowed to choose the content they like. Net neutrality would become a rejection of the Fairness Doctrine. Republicans would either have to vote for net neutrality or against banning the Fairness Doctrine – a tricky place to be.
The part my friends won’t like about this (one of the parts, I’m sure there are others) is that it puts Democrats in the position of voting against the Fairness Doctrine, a policy many of them support. But the Fairness Doctrine isn’t coming back. It won’t pass Congress, if it did and if McCain is elected president it would be vetoed, and if it did pass and if president Obama signed it into law, the Courts would reject it. The Fairness Doctrine is gone. So why not use it as a foil to help get net neutrality?
