Mother Jones does a tremendous service in
the dumbest, most deceitful conservative arguments against net neutrality (leaving out
Ted Cruz and his Obamacare idiocy, because it is "so stupid on so many levels that it isn't worth debunking"). Boy are there some doozies, like this big lie from the Arizona chapter of our old friends, the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity:
Yep, they say net neutrality will bring a 16.1 percent "internet tax." They are suggesting that by putting broadband under a stronger regulatory framework—Title II of the Telecommunications Act—the FCC will apply the exact same regulations and fees on broadband as they do for telephones. There is a 16 percent service fee levied on telecoms by the FCC to help provide phone service to rural customers, yes. But that doesn't mean that the FCC will levy it on internet service providers. What conservatives don't want you to know is that the FCC would use
forbearance in determining which fees and which regulations that now cover telephones will apply to ISPs. The likelihood that telecoms will have to pay this tax is very, very small.
Then there's House Speaker John Boehner, who wrote on Facebook, "An open, vibrant #Internet is essential to a growing economy, and #netneutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship." Boehner ignores the entire history of the internet, which was built on the concept of net neutrality and allowed innovation to flourish. Real net neutrality does the exact opposite of what Boehner is saying; it gives startups the same access to the internet that behemoths like Amazon or Google or Facebook have. The tech world, minus the companies that provide the big telecoms their hardware and software, is solidly behind net neutrality precisely because they want to preserve the open environment that built the internet economy.
Here's one that makes no sense at all, argued by Rep. Darrell Issa. He says that giving big telecoms the ability to eat up all the bandwidth will encourage them to create more bandwidth. Because they've done such a good job at creating bandwidth so far? The debunking:
America ranks 31st in the world (behind Estonia) in its average download speeds. But that's not because we're preventing Comcast from cutting deals. Quite the opposite: Deregulation of the telecommunications industry has allowed Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, and AT&T to divide up markets and put themselves in positions where they face no competition.
But perhaps the best of all of them is the
conspiracy theories.
You can already smell the mandates and the loopholes once Congress gets involved. Think special, high-speed priority for campaign commercials or educational videos about global warming. Or roadblocks—like requiring emergency 911 service—to try to kill off free Internet telephone service such as Skype. [emphasis added]
Yes, net neutrality is a liberal plot by the FCC to force global warming education on all of us. Which again misses the entire point. The FCC can't regulate content, and it wouldn't under stricter ISP regulations. What net neutrality would actually preserve is the ability of anybody to put their legal content out there—including global warming deniers. Without net neutrality, the broadband providers would get to decide what content gets priority.
Conservatives are clearly gearing up for a big fight over net neutrality, largely because it's something President Obama has now strongly endorsed. But they're missing the part where big majorities of their base understand this issue, and support net neutrality.
We can win this fight to save the internet. Please commit to making a call every day until FCC Chairman Wheeler makes his decision to preserve net neutrality.