Over the weekend, my wife and I watched Fredericka Whitfield interview Craig Newmark of Craig’s List. Craig was on the air defending Net Neutrality. Whitfield asked a direct question: If Internet access were not maintained in the same way it is today, i.e. under the concept of “net neutrality”, what would that mean for consumers?
Craig is very attuned to the world wide web. He is also attuned to his customer base, as his position in the wildly popular Craigslist is not CEO, but Head of Customer Service. So Craig answered intelligently. He gave the Net Neutrality party line: “Consumers will notice their Internet get slower.”
When pressed by Fredericka to explain that further, he was hard-pressed to explain because Craig is not very attuned to explaining complex subjects using bumper sticker-sized phrases…and that’s a shame. Because the issue of Net Neutrality supersedes perceived speed. The real issue behind Net Neutrality is freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Imagine the Internet the way your forefathers did way back in the nineteen nineties. Back then it was called the “Information Superhighway”. Now imagine all websites as cars hauling ass along that cyber freeway. Just like you rationalize to yourself when you’re speeding on your own local highway, the website/cars on the Information Superhighway are going as fast as the number of cars on the road will allow (until someone spots Highway Patrol). Now imagine the Information Superhighway suddenly marked by toll booths. Everything slows at a toll booth. Sometimes, the volume of traffic approaching a toll booth will cause a traffic jam several miles in either direction. Finally, imagine E-Z pass lanes where cars with a special device, purchased at a premium zoom by the other toll booth-stuck cars.
Large corporations, backed by deep pockets will have their websites zooming while smaller, independent and individual website designers, content creators and surfers will get log-jammed. The fear is that the big corps will soon be zooming the e-z pass lanes in monstrous buses, siphoning off people traffic and transporting those people willing to pay the fare to be in the fast lane.
That’s what will happen to Internet access should Net Neutrality be defeated. It’s a simple analogy easily digested by most Americans, as long as someone explains the cars are the websites; the cars are not people surfing the web. The problem of those outspoken proponents of Net Neutrality who are like Craig Newmark is that they’re so involved in the web and understand the concept of Internet access speed so well that they forget most of us don’t.
Most of us are smart enough to know it’s not as fast as TV but not as slow as, well, dial-up. Speed is relative. Car analogies are relevant. I really wish that he had understood that before his interview with Fredericka. When she countered with Mike McCurry’s position, Craig rebutted by accusing McCurry of speaking “truthiness”. I immediately recognized that as an inside remark that Craig and his Netizen friends probably used to disparage all lobbyists who spin the truth together with half-lies in order to bolster their arguments. I’ve done the very same thing with my friends, mocking fake chocolate candies by calling them “choco-latey”. The problem with introducing the world to your “truthiness” in a two point five minute interview is that the world will only hear that you said Mike McCurry spoke the truth. Ouch.
I believe in Net Neutrality. I believe inner city schools and remote rural areas deserve equal access to the Internet as much as major metropolitan areas. I am a big fan of Craig Newmark and his customer service orientation. I offer my analogy to the movement in the hopes that they will effectively convey its importance to all Americans. And if Net Neutralizers don’t use mine, then go get a hold of Moby. His quote made the complexities of Net Neutrality super easy to digest.
