Op-Ed

[Commentary] It's hard to know what is sadder — that the Tribune’s Editorial Board believes that cat videos are the best thing about the internet or that it picks the interests of fat-cat internet service providers over its readers. Net neutrality is not “a new concept promulgated by the Obama administration,” but a consumer protection concern that dates back at least as far as the George W. Bush administration when then-Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell outlined four “internet freedoms”:

[Commentary] Did Obama really invent net neutrality? Even in a country with famously short attention spans, at least some people might have noticed that net neutrality has been around longer than that. So where did net neutrality come from? How did it get started? What’s now called the “net neutrality debate” is really a restatement of a classic question: How should a network’s owner treat the traffic that it carries? What rights, if any, should a network’s users have versus its owners?

[Commentary] On November 16, the Federal Communications Commission granted TV licensees the right to provide what it euphemistically called “the next generation TV broadcast standard.” Although this giveaway of spectrum rights (popularly known as the “public airwaves”) to media plutocrats had substantial benefits for the American public, it also had needlessly high costs.

[Commentary] Scrapping the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) net neutrality rules will harm consumers and content creators, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) isn’t going to be able to stop it.  As a commissioner at the FTC, I can vouch for the fantastic competition and consumer protection work our small agency does with its dedicated and hardworking staff. There are many things it is equipped to do well. But protecting the open internet is not one of them. The FTC does not have specialized expertise in telecommunications.

[Commentary] Whereas Soviet intelligence operatives occasionally tried to plant false stories in Western media outlets, today the Kremlin subcontracts the task to proxies, who spread customized disinformation using fake accounts on social media. These proxies need not even reside in Russia since they can be contacted and compensated via the so-called Dark Web (a parallel, closed-off internet) wherever they live.

[Commentary]  Democrats are missing the boat in demonstrating to millennials that they will fight for an issue that matters to them. The tech-savvy generation, more than others, understands what the end of net neutrality means—and they don’t like it at all. If Democrats had been louder on this issue, they would have shown that the party cares about what’s important to young people.

[Cliston Brown is a communications executive and political analyst in the San Francisco Bay Area]

Voters know Republicans in Congress are the only ones who can stop Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai.  If enough Republicans tell Chairman Pai to stop, he will likely back down. After all, Congressional pressure has stopped the FCC before. Members of Congress face a choice: They can side with their constituents, who overwhelmingly want them to defend the greatest communication and innovation platform ever invented, or support one of the most blatant anti-consumer corporate giveaways in modern history.

[Commentary] Net neutrality is founded on the core principle that everyone should have equal access to the internet, regardless of what content the individual chooses to consume. It is the only way we can ensure a level playing field for all citizens of this country. We have many sources of disparity we already reckon with regularly — income, education, race, health, gender, geographic location, and the list goes on. Why are we creating another one?

[Commentary] December’s Federal Communications Commission vote will simply return the Internet to the same regulatory framework that governed in 2015 and for the 20 years that preceded it. The Internet flourished under this approach, while consumers and innovators alike benefited from a free and open Internet. The FCC’s plan ensures that robust open Internet protections are in place. Here are just four of them:

[Commentary] The internet is a set of pipes. It’s also a set of values. Whose? The people who consider it a great social equalizer, a playing field that has to be level? Or the ones who own the network and consider themselves best qualified to manage it? It’s a philosophical contest fought under the banner of “net neutrality,” a slogan that inspires rhetorical devotion but eludes precise definition. Broadly, it means everything on the internet should be equally accessible — that the internet should be a place where great ideas compete on equal terms with big money.