Author’s note: This post contains portions of a letter I recently sent to my Representative and Senators on Wednesday of this week, precisely one week before the FCC is scheduled to unveil its anti-net neutrality outline.
The open Internet gives the American people and their initiatives — be they social or professional — a maximum online outreach. We have seen this in everything from YouTube’s rise from humble beginnings to the viral Ice Bucket Challenge ALS research fundraiser. Every online customer of every telecom network could access and contribute to these wholesome rises.
The #MeToo hashtag, which has shed light on sexual predators ranging from as Harvey Weinstein to Roy Moore, is no exception to this.
As such, net neutrality promotes a proper balance of power. It does not inhibit it.
Some opponents of net neutrality have misinterpreted/mischaracterized the policy as a “power grab” and “overregulation” by the government. The reality is that open Internet regulation entails the reasonable restraint of companies that provide Internet service.
It simply means that no telecom company may slow down, block or charge extra fees to selected sites out of bias. Nor may it gouge any service prices to the point where prospective customers cannot afford Internet access.
As the independent advocacy group Free Press noted:
“The FCC’s Net Neutrality rules clearly state that broadband providers cannot "impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service" unless it's what the agency calls “reasonable network management” for a legitimate technical purpose.”
This principle is not only fair, but vital for the free flow of web-dependent businesses and communicators. And in recent and ongoing news cycles, we have seen this vitality in profound action via the #MeToo campaign. It has instilled nothing short of empowerment and soul-searching for the appropriate parties (although much more of the latter is still in order).
With the unlimited outreach to one another they get from the open Internet, victims of sexual misconduct have realized a bigger and stronger sense of community. The resultant circulating hashtag has given women (and some men) the long overdue courage to come forward with their stories.
Without this, we might not be looking at the rightful downfalls of Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K. or other household names who have disgustingly crossed the line, abusing their fame and their power.
As such, this development represents the quintessence of how net neutrality curtails undue power grabs. Under a different scenario, many of these victims might still feel compelled to stay mum, as they did in the decades before the Internet was a known innovation, let alone a household item.
Either that, or their attempts to speak up might be muffled if the person they accuse has powerful ties to a telecom company.
Likewise, without the traction the open Internet has given to #MeToo, the nation might never have known everything there is to know about the case of Judge Moore. Now that we do know (and are learning more each day), elected officials on both sides of the aisle have widely agreed that Moore must not continue his Senate campaign.
Percentage-wise, the bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill against Judge Moore is not unlike the vast bipartisan consensus among constituents in favor of net neutrality.
A recent Civis Analytics poll found that more than 70 percent of Independent, Republican and Democratic voters alike want the FCC to keep protecting the open Internet as it has since former chair Tom Wheeler oversaw the current rules.
We have since seen companies like current chair Ajit Pai’s former employer allegedly attempt to circumvent those rules. Without net neutrality and without its enforcement, large telecom providers will be granted an undue power grab that will not only put jobs at risk, but rob the American people of an essential and helpful means of day-to-day communication.
Ahead of the Pai-led unveiling of an anti-net neutrality outline on Nov. 22, the least Congress can do is take each of the above facts into diligent consideration. If it does, Congress can take the next step from its anti-Moore fortitude. It can capitalize on this easy opportunity to take another stand for refreshing bipartisan consensus and act according to the clear will and interests of the American people in the process.