Today, NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow gave a speech at the Media Institute, the nonprofit research foundation specializing in communications policy issues. Fittingly, since the Institute is very focused on issues of freedom of speech, the address focused on “net neutrality” and the First Amendment. You can read the speech here, but I thought it would be helpful to provide some background information.
There are plenty of freedom-loving Americans who love the Constitution. Some of them even carry around copies of that document. And yet, even among these hardcore fans, there is often a misunderstanding of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are many circumstances under which individuals may claim a violation of their First Amendment rights. Someone may lose employment after saying something in the press. A person may not be allowed to appear on a television broadcast. A student might be suspended for something written in the newspaper of a private college. These might be unjust situations, but they are not governed by the First Amendment, which says that the government may not abridge freedom of speech. What the First Amendment guarantees is that the government doesn’t get to decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t.
In his speech, Kyle McSlarrow says:
…urging the government to impose rules that supposedly promote First Amendment values is too often used to justify regulations that instead threaten First Amendment rights. By its plain terms and history, the First Amendment is a limitation on government power, not an empowerment of government. Making these arguments is, ironically, almost proof that First Amendment rights are being implicated.
It’s also important to note that there are many who seem to think that the cable industry is a special case. They argue that cable’s infrastructure was built with government funding and is therefore a public utility and subject to common carrier regulation. All of these assertions are factually incorrect. To quote a previous post:
To be sure, our video services are subject to government regulation – at the federal, state and local levels – but we aren’t like telephone companies (which built their systems with captive ratepayers and a government-guaranteed rate of return) or even radio and television broadcasters (who were given public airwaves for free, but in return had to adhere to certain “public interest” requirements). Our industry had no government-guaranteed return or government-granted public airwaves – to the extent we used any public resources, we paid for our rights-of-way with local franchise fees. Indeed, the cable industry built analog networks, our new digital networks, our cable modem and digital phone services with private risk capital with no assured return.
Some might argue that, because the FCC has previously regulated speech on the broadcast networks, such an approach would be appropriate in the Internet Age. But note what Kyle said in his address:
…in this case, the FCC is not engaged in the allocation of the public airwaves. The bandwidth we’re talking about is capacity on private transmission facilities constructed by ISPs. Imposing regulations that prevent providers from using “too much” capacity for speech-related services not even associated with Internet access should cause all sorts of First Amendment and Fifth Amendment Takings alarm bells to go off.
Finally, it’s not just the cable operators that would be affected. The other concern about the government deciding to involve itself in these debates – which should properly been seen as technology discussions – is that we don’t know what future applications might be developed or how they might need the network to be structured in order to work most effectively.
To quote from Kyle’s speech:
Not all content providers may need the same speed, prioritization of data and quality of service as, say, providers of high-definition video, or maybe 3D video or who-knows-what-else may be invented by application providers. But ISPs can’t prioritize all content, due to the physical limitations of their systems. And it may be entirely too costly (as well as unnecessary and inefficient) to offer the same quality of service that a video game service requires to every single content provider. And so the effect of such a rule would be simply to prevent the offering of the services consumers might want that require such special treatment.
Or to quote one of my earlier blog posts:
If you want a dumb pipe, with every bit treated the same, that will significantly affect telemedicine and other advanced services which may require priority treatment. If creating some method of optimized delivery was such a terrible thing, what does this say about services like Akamai, that help make content distribution more efficient, benefiting both consumers and content producers?
Really, all we’re saying here is that these are very complicated issues and we hope that the government treads lightly as it contemplates taking action.