Net Neutrality Fight Gets Religious

Some of those opponents, not surprisingly, include major content providers such as Google, whose chief evangelist, Vint Cerf, told the Committee last February, "For the foreseeable future most Americans will face little choice among broadband carriers. Enshrining a rule that permits carriers to discriminate in favor of certain kinds or sources of services would place those carriers in control of online activity."

As the letter from religious and ethics groups concludes, "Unfortunately, some major Internet content-provider companies and third-party advocacy groups have politicized this issue, and are using fear and hyperbole to encourage Congress to pass so-called 'network neutrality' regulations that would do nothing more than stifle innovation. Their claims are based on the premise that broadband providers will block content and discriminate against information they don't agree with - therefore, they must be regulated. We believe it much more likely that such...regulations will actually discourage broadband providers from continuing to enhance the flow and security of online communication."

The group authoring this letter, which also includes Abstinence Clearinghouse and the pro-life Traditional Values Coalition, may find itself splitting even the religious right into separate camps on this issue.

Last May, the Christian Coalition of America, founded in 1989 by former Republican Presidential candidate Pat Robertson, began establishing a group of net neutrality supporters who would actually find themselves breaking with Congressional Republicans to support largely Democrat-backed amendments.

In a statement last May, CCA president Roberta Combs rallied net neutrality advocates with the kind of language the authors of Wednesday's letter find hyperbolic. "Under the new rules, there is nothing to stop the cable and phone companies from not allowing consumers to have access to speech that they don't support," Combs wrote.

"What if a cable company with a pro-choice Board of Directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, they could slow down the pro-life web site, harming their ability to communicate with other pro-lifers - and it would be legal."

The split this issue has caused among otherwise political and religious partners is actually mirrored by the rift in the Internet community itself, some of whose prominent members have at times supported both sides, and have ended up on the fence - the Electronic Frontier Foundation among them. But a white paper produced in June by the Progress and Freedom Foundation think tank may at last be tipping the scales, and has been cited not unfavorably, at least, by some EFF advocates.

"Calls for net neutrality regulation," the PFF writes, "largely are based on the fear that competition among 'last mile' broadband networks is inadequate to prevent owners of such networks from denying consumers or companies trying to reach them fair and even-handed use of the networks. Particularly given that broadband providers continue to vie for customers on the bases of price, speed and other features, policymakers should ask whether this fear is justified and, if so, whether net neutrality rules are the best way to address the underlying competitive concern."

In short, the deciding factor in this hot-button issue may come down to the simple question of whether, given the real state of technology today, it actually matters.