Last week US Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) received the American Spirit Award from the Caucus for Television Producers, Writers & Directors. Among the efforts for which the Senator was recognized is his support for legislation requiring internet network management to be content neutral.
For many this issue is called net neutrality. The Senator said he preferred the term “internet freedom” because in his view the point of the legislation is to keep the internet free and open for artists, entrepreneurs and everyone else. He argued that without strong net neutrality provisions (or network freedom provisions) the next Google might not be able to make it because they might be locked out of a closed network controlled by a small handful of large companies.
The Senator’s point on language is a good one, though I’m not sure his preferred phrase moves the debate in the right direction.
Net neutrality is not a terrific phrase. It doesn’t mean much to most folks, and as those for whom it does mean something disagree about what it means. A good phrase is one that captures the entire debate and points to a clear resolution – “pro choice” and “pro life” define the abortion debate, they indicate the stakes, what is being weighed and point to an outcome. Net neutrality doesn’t accomplish these goals.
Network freedom has a nice ring to it, but it defines the issue as one that limited, largely lefty, interest groups take up. It rings of email campaigns and liberal rants. To be clear: there are a lot of largely lefty interest groups I like, and I rant with the best of them, but that is not always the best way to win in Congress or at the FCC.
What we’re talking about is allowing those who physically build, rent and manage the networks to be able to do so and make a reasonable profit, while ensuring that everyone who wants to use those networks for legal purposes has an equal opportunity to do so. That means that content can be slowed, shifted, privileged, etc. if that management is done in a content-blind way.
Importantly, the phrase needs to define the debate in ways that persuade those in power who do not already support this notion. Advocates have to talk to those with whom they don’t already agree.
In this light, what phrase should be used? Open internet market? Internet non-discrimination? Content non-discrimination? Open internet access? Free market internet access? There are lots of options that describe what activists are seeking that sound reasonable, pro-business and pro-consumer without sounding overly inside-internerdy our too outside interlefty and that may be able to reach those whose opinions are not already set.
