Maintaining net neutrality: First Amendment, Raging Grannies, and Leonard Boswell

What kind of net? Basketball net? Fishing net? Nope. Internet! Today in Des Moines we are not hearing much about net neutrality, but net neutrality is a hot issue.

SearchNetworking.com defines the term.

Net neutrality is the principle that data packets on the Internet should be moved impartially, without regard to content, destination or source. Net neutrality is sometimes referred to as the ‘First Amendment of the Internet.‘ (accessed 04/20/2008)

Net neutrality means that information coming to your computer will come to you at the same speed as it comes to the computers of Mid American Energy, British Petroleum, or Blue Cross Blue Shield of Iowa (and without changing the order in which that information moves); it means that information coming from Fox News, Halliburton, or Hearst-Argyle would move at the same speed as information coming from Catholic Charities, Century of the Common Iowan, or The Rural Populist. It would not be held up because of who you are, whether giver or receiver. It means that you have the same rights as the rich and powerful to hear and be heard in this grand adventure called the Internet.

Many see net neutrality as a Constitutional right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Today in contrast to much of U.S. history, the Internet is the way in which people are assembling peacefully, speaking freely, expressing religious views, petitioning and reporting news and opinion. The Internet is as fundamental as the traditional press in disseminating information; it is as fundamental as free speech in the expression by the individual; it is now the place where people assemble peacefully; it is today’s street corner; it is one place in which religious views can be debated without violence; it is now the door-to-door manner of collecting signatures from people of common views for the redress of grievance. These rights are worth protecting.

When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered. (accessed 04/20/2008) Dorothy Thompson

If we sell or diminish even part of these rights to someone with more money or more power, we have indeed given up our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceable assembly. That has almost happened twice – once very recently, once in 2006.

As it turns out Comcast Communications, the powerful cable company and internet service provider was caught red handed restricting service to some lawful users. Upon discovery our federal government through the FCC stepped in quickly. A second, widely reported hearing was held last week in the heart of Silicon Valley on the campus of Stanford University. Who didn’t bother to show up? Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Time-Warner. They are not big supporters of net neutrality.

So who is supporting net neutrality? Among many others, here at least are three groups that are fun to put together.

• Christian Coalition of America (a conservative Christian advocacy group)
• Common Cause (a nonprofit, nonpartisan citizen’s lobbying group) (a longer article)
• Raging Grandmas (who got together just for the occasion)

Net neutrality is not big news in Des Moines, but let’s see who is reporting this news elsewhere.

• The New York Times
• The Washington Post
• Associated Press
• Economist
• Reuters
• consumeraffairs.com
• PCWorld
• BBC

We also have a Congressman who is not a big supporter of net neutrality. In 2006 a critical bill (H.R. 5252) called COPE came up in the U. S. House. It was narrowly defeated. One of the Democratic Congressmen who sided with the powerful telecommunications industry against net neutrality was Representative Leonard Boswell. While I voted for Representative Boswell, and he has represented me well on many issues, he certainly did not represent me that day. I want to have a Congressman who understands the importance of the Internet to our basic American freedoms.

If the telecommunications industry should ever win this battle to set different standards for different internet clients, your ability to hear and be heard will be affected. Your voice will be restricted to the small pipe. The more powerful, moneyed interests will have the big one.

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us. William O. Douglas (accessed 04/20/2008)

Be well-informed on net neutrality.

Guest Writer: James G. Lindberg (Jim) is the Purple Wren’s sweetie and is a visiting chemistry professor at Grinnell College and retired from Drake University.

Photo on flickr by shapeshift
Photo on flickr by lovers v haters

[tags] Iowa, Des Moines, Central Iowa News, Net Neutrality, Leonard Boswell, First Amendment, Telecommunications, Common Cause[/tags]

Sandy Renshaw is Sandy Renshaw is a self-employed communications consultant. You will also find her blogging at Purple Wren.
Email this author | All posts by Sandy Renshaw