Here at RSR, we try not to trip over issues that could be construed as “political “. The problem however is that, at least in the United States, virtually everything becomes “political ” sooner or later. It’s a national sport. So it is when it comes to “net neutrality “. The politicization of the issue surrounds not the concept, but about the possible remedies.

RSR is on record with our unambiguous support of the concept of net neutrality, meaning that we are opposed to the idea of preferential speeds for those willing to pay for it. About one year ago, I wrote a piece for Retail Paradox Weekly exhorting retailers to know about the issue and let their voices be heard via their trade associations. And last summer we updated our readers, once again expressing our concern that “without exerting industry-wide pressure on regulatory bodies, the retail community as a whole will have no voice in the outcome of this debate. “

What has changed between then and now? Well… President Obama stepped into the debate almost immediately after the opposition Republican Party swept the mid-term elections last November (debate at the time on this and other stands by the President centered around whether or not Mr. Obama, now free of the burden of trying to support Democratic candidates, felt able to speak his mind more openly).

I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise that his aligning with the majority of Americans who understand the issue managed to trigger diatribes from some commentators. The fly in the ointment is that qualification, “Americans who understand the issue “. According to a May 2014 Google Consumer Survey, over 57% of those polled checked the box for “I don’t know enough about ‘net neutrality.’ ” And since in the survey Democrats favored net neutrality nearly 2-1, it’s considered a progressive issue, and therefore conservatives don’t like it. One prominent conservative politician even labeled it “Obamacare for the Internet “, giving the issue the proverbial Kiss Of Death, at least for American conservatives.

The Real Political Issue

So it’s political. Or is it the “remedy ” that triggers the political reaction? It turns out that other polls point in a consistent direction: when asked if companies should have the ability to pay for faster delivery of their content, most oppose it. But a Huffington Post poll taken last November also shows that only 34% of Americans support government regulation. Huffington Post revealed that “Democrats were more than twice as likely to support regulation as to oppose it, while Republicans were twice as likely to oppose it as to support it. “

So it’s not a settled issue – at all. Subsequent to the U.S. President’s remarks and the “public debate period ” following the U.S. Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) introduction of its new proposal for Net Neutrality rules in May 2014, the FCC Commissioner has announced the agency’s intention to reclassify Internet services as “common carrier ” services under the Communications Act and impose “light ” regulation. Now comes the hard part: getting it done.

And so the debate begins anew. James Tuthill (who teaches telecommunications, broadcast and Internet law at the UC Berkeley School of Law, and who I quoted in my March 3, 2014 Retail Paradox Weekly article entitled Net Un-Neutrality: Consider Yourself Warned) stated in a February 20^th Opinion column in the San Francisco Chronicle:

“The basic issue here is really very simple: Business people don’t want the government looking over their shoulders. OK. That’s the common and understandable position of the business community. But when we’re dealing with a service that has become so embedded in our everyday life that it’s a necessity in order to function effectively, we can’t leave it to the businesses themselves to always do the right thing. We need some government oversight for protection of the public’s interest, and much less than the airline industry receives from the FAA. “

In the very same edition of the Chronicle, Larry Irving, a former assistant Secretary of Commerce during the Clinton Administration, made the case for a bipartisan law rather than regulatory control:

“Since the inception of the Internet, the U.S. government has urged international policymakers and regulators to exercise regulatory restraint. To reverse course at this critical time in the development of the global Internet seems self-defeating. “

This Week

That is a nutshell is where the issue stands now. The FCC is scheduled to vote on the reclassification of the Internet to be a “common carrier ” and thus subject to FCC regulation, this week, on February 26^th. Meanwhile, some Republicans in Congress are moving to strip the FCC of the ability to regulate the Internet at all.

As we have done before, RSR urges anyone who has an interest in the Internet as a conduit between consumers and businesses trying to serve their needs to form an opinion, and let it be heard. I’ll once again quote Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who said:

“Our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods. “

Eisenhower was talking about the free movement goods on the U.S. interstate system of roads. Now the debate is about the flow of information between those who seek it and those that provide it. But in all other respects, the issues are identical. And so everyone should be as concerned about the regulation of the Internet as they are about regulation of the interstate highway, railroad, and commercial flight systems.

So – pay attention!