Net Neutrality In The Wake Of The Election

BY CCIA Staff
November 5, 2010

In the wake of Tuesday’s election results, the demise of net neutrality has been greatly exaggerated.

Here are the facts:

In May 73 Democrats signed on to a letter outlining their opposition to the FCC imposing net neutrality rules through reclassification.

In June 32 Democrats signed a letter in support of reclassification.

In late October 95 Democratic candidates signed a pledge, organized by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) to support net neutrality rules.

In the aftermath of Election Day, some have incorrectly read Republican gains as a rejection of net neutrality principles by the public.

These claims actually purposefully obscure the true facts about Tuesday’s results: voters supported Democratic incumbents on the record in favor of net neutrality unanimously, while rejecting more than one-third of those who oppose Internet freedom. The tale-of-the-tape is in the numbers: 27 of 73 Democrats who opposed FCC reclassification were defeated, while all 32 who signed on in support of reclassification were re-elected.

Much has been made of the fact that all 95 candidates who supported PCCC’s net neutrality pledge were defeated. The truth is that none of these candidates were incumbents seeking re-election, and most were facing GOP incumbents in a wave election year for Republicans. Any further conclusions are misguided.

Claims of victory by net neutrality opponents are wildly overblown; net neutrality was not a defining issue in this year’s congressional elections. According to exit polls, the economy and jobs were voters’ top concerns.

If Congress had actually passed net neutrality legislation, candidates spent time debating and running ads on net neutrality, and there was data to back up the claim that voters decided races on the issue, then concluding that voters sent a message might have validity. As it turns out candidates were eerily hesitant to campaign on an anti-Internet freedom, anti-growth platform of limiting access to websites, blocking content, suppressing speech, slowing service, stifling innovation, killing jobs, and retarding economic growth for the nation all for the bottom line of few companies.

The divided government and likely gridlock with these election results make it all the more likely that Congress will not take action to guarantee that the Internet remains free and open. In order to ensure that the Internet continues to be an open a place where entrepreneurs, ideas, and innovation thrive and information flows freely, it is more vital now then ever for the FCC to move quickly to set ground rules to protect the free and open Internet and the economic opportunity and prosperity that accompanies that openness.

Related Articles

White House Expected To Issue Executive Order Targeting Online Speech

May 28, 2020

Washington – According to various news reports, President Trump is expected to issue an executive order seeking to roll back the liability protections that have allowed users to post content online.  Reports of an executive order come days after Twitter applied a fact-check notice adjacent to accusations from President Trump via Twitter about alleged voter…

CCIA Asks Senate Judiciary To Extend And Strengthen USA FREEDOM Act Protections

Nov 5, 2019

Washington — The Senate Judiciary Committee holds its first hearing Wednesday on reauthorizing the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. The Computer & Communications Industry Association is calling on senators to maintain due process and civil liberties protections for US citizens under current surveillance authority and to use this periodic reauthorization to re-evaluate whether the law…

EU Court Ruling On Worldwide Take Down of Defamatory Content Raises Freedom of Speech Concerns

Oct 3, 2019

Brussels, BELGIUM — The EU Court of Justice today ruled that host providers can be asked to take down defamatory content, that is “identical” or “equivalent” to content previously ruled illegal under national rules. The Decision adds that hosting providers should remove information covered by the injunction or block access to that information worldwide, as…