Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Right and Left React to the F.C.C.’s Vote on Net Neutrality Rules

The political news cycle is fast, and keeping up can be overwhelming. Trying to find differing perspectives worth your time is even harder. That’s why we have scoured the internet for political writing from the right and left that you might not have seen.

Has this series exposed you to new ideas? Tell us how. Email us at ourpicks@nytimes.com.

For an archive of all the Partisan Writing Roundups, check out Our Picks.

Image
Ajit Pai, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, before the commission’s vote on Thursday on net neutrality rules.Credit...Tom Brenner/The New York Times

Jonathan Spalter in The Daily Caller:

“The F.C.C. is making way for a new sheriff — the Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s leading consumer protection agency, which already is charged with policing the rest of the internet.”

Mr. Spalter is the president and chief executive of USTelecom, an organization that represents the interests of the telecom industry. He argues that, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is not harming consumers by undoing the net neutrality rules that were set in place in 2015. Rather, Mr. Spalter argues, by giving the Federal Trade Commission authority over internet service providers, Mr. Pai is displaying an “extraordinary show of regulatory humility” and, ultimately, doing the right thing for consumers. Read more »

_____

Ed Krayewski in Reason:

“These kind of apocalyptics can be expected when sober arguments aren’t available, and there are very few that don’t rely on misrepresenting what the 2015 rules are or what their repeal means.”

Mr. Krayewski, writing in the libertarian Reason, echoes how many on the right have reacted to the news of the repeal of net neutrality. The hysteria on the left, he argues, can’t possibly live up to what will actually happen once the regulations are lifted from the telecom industry. Read more »

_____

Chad Felix Greene in The Federalist:

“Among the remarkable overreactions to the repeal of net neutrality rules, one of the most bizarre claims asserted that the decision placed L.G.B.T. people in harm’s way.”

Mr. Greene takes issue with how some groups on the left have reacted to the repeal of net neutrality. Here, he takes on statements issued by Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that claim that a new, unregulated internet might make marginalized voices and unpopular political opinions harder to find online. Mr. Greene, himself a gay man, writes that “it is unnerving to realize that the leaders of the L.G.B.T. movement seem to believe average gay people are utterly dependent on them for seemingly everything.” Read more »

_____

Image
A protest against the F.C.C. move was held in downtown Manhattan last week.Credit...Sam Hodgson for The New York Times

Vanessa A. Bee in Current Affairs:

“There is a little-discussed alternative even better than the net neutrality status quo — a true public option!”

“Even if you believe in competition and the free market generally,” writes Ms. Bee, “it’s really not a thing here.” People aren’t able to switch internet service providers easily, which explains part of the reason so many of these companies are regional monopolies. The solution, she suggests, is for state and local governments to form their own service providers and “provide faster and cheaper internet on the basis of net neutrality principles.” Read more »

_____

The editorial board of The Los Angeles Times:

“He wants the agency that oversees communications networks to wash its hands of the most important communications network of the 21st century.”

The editorial board of The Los Angeles Times addresses what Mr. Spalter claims is a positive aspect of Mr. Pai’s recent decision: the choice to have the F.T.C. and other federal antitrust agencies oversee the broadband providers. “The obvious problem there,” the board writes, “is that broadband providers could pick winners and losers online and stay out of trouble for it simply by disclosing that they are, in fact, prioritizing traffic for any online site or service that can afford the fee.” Read more »

_____

Mitchell Baker in CNN:

“Corporate interests are using their extensive influence to promote an ‘internet for the elites.’”

Ms. Baker is the co-founder and chairwoman of Mozilla, the company that owns the internet browser Firefox. She argues that the trouble with repealing net neutrality extends beyond “first world problems,” adding that “there’s more than convenience at stake.” Telecom companies are becoming “vertical monopolies” — internet service providers that also own the content they deliver through their infrastructure. “In the post-neutrality Wild West,” she argues, these companies are freed to privilege their content or throttle that of their competitors. She adds, “this isn’t a paranoid pipe dream; consider Verizon’s attempts to block Google Wallet.” Read more »

_____

Michael J. Socolow in The Washington Post:

“History tells us that if Pai really wants to create a climate of competition and innovation, he would have upheld net neutrality.”

Mr. Socolow, who teaches journalism at the University of Maine, uses multiple historical examples of when government regulation in the telecom space actually produced innovation rather than stifling it. He reminds his readers (and Mr. Pai) that “promoting consumption and access at the expense of corporate domination is the very reason for the F.C.C.’s existence.” Read more »

_____

Garrett Johnson and Brent Skorup in The Hill:

“What’s missing is the political will to craft an effective and bipartisan solution, and to rise above continued efforts to posture and further the partisan divide.”

The F.C.C. may have been right in removing itself from setting the rules around net neutrality, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Skorup conclude. They suggest that instead of the commission coming up with rules and regulations, Congress find a bipartisan solution for “preserving and protecting a free and open internet.” Read more »

_____

Jeff Spross in The Week:

“Ultimately, where you come down in this debate has a lot to do with whether you think ISPs’ monopoly power is an accident that can be reversed, or an inevitable consequence of the nature of the industry.”

Though Mr. Spross often writes from a liberal perspective, his analysis here is evenhanded. There are still a lot of unknowns, he explains, but the “biggest single thing that changes today is regulatory certainty.” He goes on: “Champions of Pai’s move will say this is the point: Regulatory certainty is what companies need to compete and innovate. Critics will say this is exactly the problem: ISPs will know exactly what they can get away with it.” Read more »

_____

Want the Partisan Writing Roundup in your inbox? Sign up for the Morning Briefing Newsletter or the What We’re Reading Newsletter.

Have thoughts about this collection? Email feedback to ourpicks@nytimes.com.

Follow Anna Dubenko on Twitter: @AnnaDubenko.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT