Op-Ed

[Commentary] The path to victory for network neutrality supporters requires strong leadership from Capitol Hill — but it shouldn’t include a legislative “fix.” First of all, we have a good law already. It’s called Title II of the Communications Act.  What’s more, the Title II Net Neutrality rules have been upheld in court. And the existing law is immensely popular among Republican and Democratic voters, public advocates and businesses.

[Commentary] It looks like it’s too late for politicians to protect net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission is almost certainly going to repeal it, and the Republican-controlled Congress is unlikely to pass a bill mandating that all web traffic be treated equally. But corporations can still save Americans from this threat. Members of the Internet Association could band together to fund an internet service provider that would guarantee neutrality and offer service to every American at affordable rates.

[Commentary] A few weeks ago, representatives from Facebook, Google and Twitter came to town to testify before Congress. But let’s look beyond the narrow scope of those hearings and explore a broader conceptual issue, a massive and thorny topic: the role and responsibility of technology companies that began as platforms and transformed, I believe, into publishers. These are two very different things, with different roles in society. Are they merely platforms and tech companies, or are they publishers with social and legal responsibility for what they publish?

[Commentary] Some have tried to whip Americans into a frenzy by making outlandish claims. Feeding the hysteria are silly accusations that my Restoring Interernet Freedom plan will “end the internet as we know it” or threaten American democracy itself. These claims obscure a pretty mundane truth: This plan would simply restore the successful, light-touch regulatory framework that governed the internet from 1996 to 2015.

[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]