Tina Dupuy Tina Dupuy, 9/8/2010 [Archive]

Net Neutrality: A Crucial Issue With a Lame Name

Net Neutrality: A Crucial Issue With a Lame Name

The term 'net neutrality' has the magical property of making most people's eyes glaze over. First, it sounds like a gambling term. 'I have a system and net neutrality -- I can't lose!' Second, no one using the Internet calls it 'the net' anymore. Just like no one in San Francisco calls it 'Frisco.' So the term 'net neutrality' either sounds super techie and over-your-head, or more dated than the 1995 Sandra Bullock movie called--The Net.

The concept of Net Neutrality is simple: all content should be treated equally. The Internet should be, as it has been, on a virtual level playing field.

Google and Verizon announced at the beginning of August their agreement for an 'Open Internet.' In their statement the FCC will continue to lack the power to enforce an open Internet, and it excludes wireless broadband from transparency, citing proprietary concerns. This is worrisome since wireless broadband is the future of the Internet. Plus, in order to ensure 'openness,' wireless or not, the Internet should be regulated like any other public utility.

So as soon as the word 'regulation' is uttered, a Frankenstein monster of a faux populist movement arises to dispute and/or cloud the issue. With corporate sponsorship they've become a loud lobbying spectacle for business interests.Cleverly they use pro-working people language, and often working people themselves, to sell policies of freedom for corporations. Yes, the Tea Party, or the Grand Old Party on caffeine, is (of course) against Net Neutrality.

The Tea Party and its coalition of 'grassroots' think tanks want corporations to be in control of the Internet so it will 'stay open.' In a signed letter sent to the FCC and the media the day after the Google/Verizon agreement was announced, the Tea Party groups' statement added that government regulation, 'could also remove the ability for parents and ISPs to prevent inappropriate material from entering the home.'

Catch that? Let business do what it wants or you won't be able to protect your children from smut. It's the most vulgar thing I've ever heard. Horribly untrue. And a cynical attempt at fear-mongering. 'Your children are at risk!' Deplorable.

Government regulation is always annoying -- unless we can't swim in the Gulf of Mexico, or eat eggs, spinach, beef or peanut butter. But wait -- annoying to whom? Government regulation irks corporations. For those of us who drive the cars, eat the food or take the medications made by corporations, government regulations are in the most basic way - lifesavers.

Personally, I would like a government bureaucrat between me and Salmonella.

The Tea Party would have opposed the National Parks system. Sectioning off millions of acres of land which otherwise could be privately developed is a job killer! Letting places like Yosemite Valley just sit there without allowing business to 'improve the experience' is an affront to freedom! Uncle Sam's telling Americans where they can and can't build is government overreach! The whole scheme will raise your taxes! Taxes - and they'll take your guns!

But no, Republican leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt saw how these parks should be nationalized, saved for future generations to have and enjoy. Lincoln coined the phrase 'for the people, by the people,' the perfect slogan for a walk through a government-regulated and, therefore, pristine forest.

And our more perfect union needs to ensure that the Internet can be open and indifferent to content (even if you disagree with said content). Congress didn't just sit on their hands and hope that just because no one had yet developed Yellowstone it wasn't at risk of such a fate. No, they acted. They protected it. Yellowstone is still there for all of us to enjoy. It's ours.

What needs to happen? Earlier this year, the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down the Comcast Decision stating under current law, the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate equality of content. This means the law must be changed.

Congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that oversees the FCC, said he is for Net Neutrality. Waxman said any bill about the issue would have to come out of his committee. What's taking so long? The hold up is that the term 'Net Neutrality' sounds like a fishing ordinance instead of what Senator Al Franken describes as 'the free speech issue of our time.'


Copyright 2010 TinaDupuy.com

Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the editor of FishbowlLA.com. Tina can be reached at tina@cagle.com.

This column has been edited by the author. Representations of fact and opinions are solely those of the author.

Download Tina Dupuy's color photo - Download Tina Dupuy's black and white mug shot photo
Why not run a cartoon with the column? We recommend the cartoons below as a good compliment to Tina Dupuy's topic.
Click on the thumbnail images to preview and download the cartoons.

Related Cartoons

Being Googled
By: Mike Keefe
The Denver Post
May 20, 2010

By: John Darkow

June 9, 2010

Regulating the Internet
By: Nate Beeler

April 6, 2010

Regulating the Internet COLOR
By: Nate Beeler

April 6, 2010

By: Terry Mosher

January 7, 2010

By: Olle Johansson

January 24, 2010

Future Shock
By: Yaakov Kirschen

November 16, 2009

iPad, iDrool
By: Manny Francisco

April 6, 2010

Net Neutrality -- color
By: Eric Allie

June 2, 2006

Net Neutrality
By: Eric Allie

June 1, 2006

We do not accept and will not review unsolicited submissions from cartoonists.
Sales & Information: (805) 969-2829 sales@cagle.com
Billing Information: (805) 969-2829billing@cagle.com
Technical Support: support@cagle.com

FREE cartoons for your website if you're already a paying print subscriber!
Artwork and columns are copyrighted by each creator. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service