New, Old and Forgotten Frames in the Network Neutrality Debate

One key reason for confusion about Network Neutrality lies in the many different and inconsistent frames used to shape the debate.

The Tea Party has entered the fray by characterizing the matter primarily in terms of freedom. Republicans decry the “job killing” impact of the FCC’s rules. Network Neutrality advocates appear ambivalent whether the FCC has capitulated to special interests, or shaped a pragmatic compromise. Older frames typically use hyperbole to justify government intervention or forbearance. Network Neutrality advocates frame the matter as impacting the Internet’s openness and its ability to incubate new ventures such as Google, Netflix, Amazon and EBay. Opponents reject the need for government safeguards based on the view that there is no problem requiring a solution. Everyone seems to have ignored a more basic question whether or not the Internet access market currently operates competitively. If the market is sufficiently competitive one can vote with their dollars and change carriers if and when the carrier operates in ways subscribers do not like. Of course there are transaction costs in making such a move, and in the wireless market carriers offer subsidized handsets to lock in subscribers for two years. As well the matter of identifying the cause of network congestion, sluggish service or discriminatory practices presents a forensic problem. In light of the interconnected and integrated nature of the Internet, where content and conduit converge, an end user cannot readily determine if degradation in service -- however defined -- is caused by the content or application provider, a long haul carrier, or the ISP providing first and last mile access to the Internet cloud.