As much as I support it, I freely admit that Net Neutrality is never going to be an issue that will rank highly in the minds of voters. It just won’t. People certainly care about access to the Internet, but Internet specific regulartory practices will never appear on any list of top national priorities. Ever.
The only people who will care about Net Neutrality to the point of translating their beliefs into electoral activism are highly engaged consumer activists and corporate interest groups. As such, the political ramifications of a Net Neutrality decision that angers both most of the corporate world and consumer advocates is a lose-lose for the administration that enacts the decision. Sadly, that is exactly what happened with the FCC’s vote to move forward on new Internet rules today.
Republicans don’t like it, and are threatening to overturn the decision with legislation:
"The FCC has overstepped its bounds and we intend to put a bridle on them and rein them in," said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), expressing the views of the new Republican leadership on key FCC oversight committees.
Mitch McConnell raised the rhetorical stakes, declaring that the Obama administration was taking over the Internet:
"Today, the Obama administration, which has already nationalized health care, the auto industry, insurance companies, banks and student loans, will move forward with what could be the first step in controlling how Americans use the Internet by establishing federal regulations on its use," said McConnell.
Verizon is mulling a lawsuit against the ruling. Given the current makeup of the judiciary, and the recent success of Comcast in the courts in a similar case against the FCC, don’t discount their chances:
Multiple sources have told National Journal that Verizon, the nation's second largest telecommunications carrier, may seek to overturn the historic open Internet rules to be approved by the Federal Communications Commission Tuesday morning. Sources said the option is on the table, but cautioned that no final decision has been made.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the debate, open Internet advocates Free Press describes today’s ruling as a squandered opportunity:
“We are deeply disappointed that the chairman chose to ignore the overwhelming public support for real Net Neutrality, instead moving forward with industry-written rules that will for the first time in Internet history allow discrimination online. This proceeding was a squandered opportunity to enact clear, meaningful rules to safeguard the Internet’s level playing field and protect consumers.”
In some policy areas, political observers might argue that angering interest groups on both sides is a sign that you are doing something right. However, on an issue that is unable to hold much attention for the public at large, that calculation doesn’t work. There is no constituency for this Net Neutrality compromise. There won’t be any legion of mushy-middle voters applauding the FCC, and the Obama administration, for telling the left and the right to go stick it on this one. There will only be pissed off activists on both sides.
In some cases, you need to pick a side, rather than just trying to make everyone either happy or angry. Net Neutrality is one of those cases.