In February, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to reclassify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, and to bar Internet service providers from treating various types of lawful online content differently. This ruling forbids both traditional broadband companies, such as Comcast and Time Warner, as well as mobile carriers like AT&T and T Mobile, from either blocking or throttling access to any website. Additionally, these firms cannot, in exchange for compensation, offer preferential treatment for particular Web domains.
The FCC’s decision, which follows more than a decade of battles in Congress, federal courts, and the arena of popular public opinion, marks a pivotal moment in the struggle over net neutrality. While this fight is far from over, events thus far offer a fascinating look at how highly contested issues are framed, debated, and decided, in today’s regulatory and political environment.
Names Matter: The term “net neutrality” was coined by Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, in his 2003 paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, which offered an in-depth exploration of, and proposals around, issues of content differentiation and discrimination in Internet access.
Neutrality is a powerful concept, within the American political framework. It brings to mind ideals of fairness, and of the Constitutional mandate that every American is guaranteed equal treatment before the law, both of which figure prominently in our national self-perception. It lies at the very foundation of our judicial system, and of the belief that we are a government “of laws, and not of men”, where every individual must have a chance to be heard in court, and ought to be judged on the merits of his or her case, without favor or bias.
This outlook has permeated throughout our culture. It is no coincidence that, in his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts analogized the role of a Supreme Court justice to that of a baseball umpire, the quintessential neutral actor, who is responsible for officiating by evenly applying the rules of the game. Describing non-preferential Internet access as “net neutrality,” makes this concept, at least at first glance, immediately more accessible to the American public.
The phrase “neutrality” is also devoid of the partisan baggage which alternate wording might carry. Suppose Wu had used the term “net equality” instead of net neutrality. That might bring to mind the conversation around marriage equality or income inequality, which are hotly contested matters, where an individual’s views are highly correlated with where one falls on the political spectrum.
Such a framing might have laid the groundwork for not just members of Congress, but rank and file conservative voters, to oppose “net equality” as some sort of Big Government scheme to regulate the Internet. Instead, polls suggest that most conservative voters actually support net neutrality, and prominent conservative groups such as the Christian Coalition have backed it as well.
Focused Internet-based activism works: For the past several years, Web communities like Reddit, along with activist organizations who engage their members primarily through online efforts, including Move On, Daily Kos,Color Of Change, Free Press, have organized their members around the issue of net neutrality. These organizations were able to mobilize millions of people to file a record number of comments with the FCC, in favor of net neutrality, while organizing public hearings, rallies, and even an outdoor Jumbotron.
This helped both drive momentum in favor of net neutrality, and open a national conversation around the issue, with subject matter experts, including former FCC commissioners and academics who study technology issues, as well as newspaper columnists and editorial boards, offering prominent public commentary in support of net neutrality.
Activists leveraged the power of digital connectivity, and specifically of an engaged online audience, around an issue of regulatory policy. This was a groundbreaking approach. The battle around net neutrality didn’t involve using the Internet to organize and rally Americans around a charismatic figure with an unusual personal story (as was done in President Obama’s 2008 campaign). Rather, net neutrality sought to raise awareness around a rather abstract aspect of the commercial Internet business, which is overseen by a faceless, unelected body of regulators.
This is a notable distinguishing feature of net neutrality efforts. While the Obama campaign set a new standard in effective use of the Web as an organizing and communications tool, it was still centered on a highly visible candidate, who enjoyed a large campaign war chest, and was running under the auspices of a mainstream party, in what was a favorable environment for Democrats.
Net neutrality, on the other hand, started out as an obscure policy question, and was brought into the public consciousness by Internet-savvy political bloggers and tech geeks. It eventually became a major national issue, where this unlikely army has (for now) prevailed. This was essentially unprecedented in American history, and may offer a blueprint for how activists can use Internet-facilitated organizing to win favorable outcomes in future Washington battles.
Corporate interests remain highly influential: Still, this aspect of the net neutrality struggle doesn't tell the full story. Net neutrality was made possible in part because companies, both large corporations and smaller businesses, were in favor of it.
If Internet service providers were allowed to discriminate either in favor of or against certain web domains or types of content, in terms of speed and ease of access, while favoring others, this might harm both established Net presences like Netflix and Amazon, as well the startups we haven’t heard of yet, but who could one day change the way we live.
With this in mind, in July 2014, the Internet Association, an industry trade group made up of powerhouses including Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon, as well as a number of rapidly growing startups, offered comments to the FCC in favor of net neutrality, and vocally opposed the creation of paid “fast lanes” or any other sort of preferential or discriminatory treatment for any web domain.
This was followed by Internet Slowdown Day in September 2014, whendozens of online domains, most notably Netflix, Dropbox, Reddit and Vimeo, deliberately displayed a “loading” icon, indicating that a particular Internet page was opening slowly. While these domains didn’t actually limit or slow access, they used their power and popularity to raise awareness, and shape the public debate around open Internet access and net neutrality.
The Internet Association also worked to influence Congressional thinking on this issue. In fact, the last few years have seen a major increase in political efforts by Silicon Valley firms. In 2014, major computer and Internet firms spent nearly $140 million on lobbying efforts; this was amongst the highest totals of any American industry (telecom firms, who oppose net neutrality also expended a substantial amount, though less than the aforementioned Internet businesses, on lobbying). Google is now one of the nation’s top 5 corporations in terms of money spent lobbying. Political engagement by Internet firms not only involves more money, but has also become more widespread and effective, over the past several years.
It is difficult to quantify just how much impact non-profit net neutrality activists have had on the decision process, as compared to corporations motivated by financial concerns. In a recent piece, Alex Pareene argued that the FCC’s favorable net neutrality ruling would not have occurred if it were not supported by powerful corporations; in this case, wealthy Web companies. Pareene also argued that the role of such interests was far more pivotal than that of any grassroots organizing ventures, and that American politicians were “responsive almost solely to the interests and desires of their rich constituents and interest groups that primarily represent big business.”
Pareene draws upon the research of Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, who found that in the United States, business interest groups, along with economic elites, have a far greater impact on government decisions than “average citizens and mass-based interest groups.” Pareene’s arguments are particularly compelling in light of the intense opposition of telecom firms to net neutrality. That is, would net neutrality have prevailed against these moneyed interests, if it were just a dedicated effort by committed activists, and without a deep-pocketed ally; in this case, Web-focused technology companies? Such an outcome is difficult to imagine.
Still, Pareene’s view seems overly cynical. As noted earlier, the organizing model around net neutrality, and it’s success, is in some respects unprecedented. This might offer a model for future advocacy actions, and in particular, successful challenges to entrenched corporate interests. Pareene’s piece, which sees dollar-heavy interests as being all-powerful, doesn’t seem to account for this reality. As a result it seems to oversimplify the power of money in swaying final outcomes.
Presidential involvement yields mixed results: In 2007, before he had won a single Democratic presidential primary, President Obama pledged to back net neutrality if elected president, and to select FCC appointees who prioritized this issue as well. In the years since his first presidential campaign, some called the president’s commitment to net neutrality into question, fearing that he might backtrack on his earlier promises.
However, in November 2014, as the FCC moved towards announcing a final decision, President Obama released a strong statement in favor of net neutrality, noting that “an open Internet is essential to the American economy” and weighing in against any sort of differential treatment, by Internet service providers, in favor of or against particular Web content. Obama also offered a blueprint for how net neutrality ought to be structured. Obama did, however, take care to note that the FCC was an independent regulatory agency, and he was only outlining his own preferences.
While Obama’s statement earned praise from groups like Free Press and the Internet Association, he also drew swift criticism from Republican legislators. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted that net neutrality was “Obamacare for the Internet…..Internet should not operate at the speed of government.” Meanwhile, Senator John Thune (R-SD), who now heads the Senate Commerce Committee, warned that Obama’s approach would “stifle” the Internet.
After the FCC’s February net neutrality ruling, Republican members of Congress opened an investigation into whether President Obama had exerted “improper influence” on the FCC’s decision process. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler acknowledged that the president’s public statements had shaped his thinking on net neutrality, as had the millions of comments from the public, but denied that the White House had otherwise improperly impacted or influenced the FCC’s decision-making process.
In this inquiry, members of Congress sought to learn more about Wheeler’s November 2014 meeting with Jeff Zients, a senior White House economic adviser. In a recent hearing, Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) contended that Zients told Wheeler that “things had changed”, and exerted pressure on Wheeler to issue a strong ruling in favor of net neutrality, leading to the FCC’s February ruling. Wheeler denied these allegations, and argued that as “CEO of an independent agency” he did not feel “obligated to follow the president’s recommendation,” nor had he received any “secret instructions.”
While the ultimate outcome of the Congressional battle over the FCC’s ruling remains uncertain, some House Republicans are vowing to pass a Congressional Review Act to nullify the FCC’s ruling, while other members have called for limiting the FCC’s budget, as well as it’s authority to issuesuch rulings in the future.
This raises the question: Did President Obama’s open support for a strong approach to net neutrality, do more harm than good? Prior to November 2014, Republican leadership did broadly oppose net neutrality. That hasn't changed. Yet, given today’s highly divided national climate, Obama’s remarks might have further inflamed partisan sentiments around this issue, and helped turn the FCC into yet another Capitol Hill football. What was likely to be gained from the president’s public statements, other than greater legislative conflict?
Perhaps Obama believed that this was a matter of historic national significance, and so it was crucial for him to demonstrate leadership, and take a strong stand. He might have also believed that presidential advocacy for net neutrality could shape public opinion around the issue, and underscore it’s importance, especially for left-leaning voters. And of course, it is quite possible that the president hoped to influence the FCC’s decision process, by signaling to Chairman Wheeler, and other appointees backed by his party, how he hoped they might rule.
Still, President Obama’s actions demonstrate both the promise and pitfalls of presidential advocacy, particularly during a time of great acrimony. While a president can use his position to rally support and raise awareness around a cause he believes in, such politicking might anger segments of the electorate and establishment, who instinctively oppose his policies. In the process, this can make it more challenging to implement laws and regulations supported by the president.
Media figures can have a tangible impact on both the political narrative and citizen actions: We often hear claims that talk show hosts, filmmakers, and entertainers can help shape political outcomes. Those who followed the 2004 presidential election might remember speculation that a music video by Eminem could help motivate young voters to turn out against President Bush. Much has also been written about the impact of Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s respective brands of satire on American politics.
Yet, it is rather challenging to pinpoint instances of a popular talk show host, or other media personality, not only impacting public discourse, but moving his or her audience to take tangible action around an issue. Daily Show alumnus John Oliver’s weekly Sunday HBO show, Last Week Tonight, is a notable exception.
Oliver’s June 1, 2014 broadcast tackled net neutrality head on. In a 13 minute segment, which Oliver began by warning that net neutrality was “boring by C Span standards“, he invoked names as varied as Google, Usain Bolt, and Superman, while describing the FCC’s frequent hiring of former telecommunications lobbyists (most notably Chairman Tom Wheeler, a former head of the National Cable Television Association, an industry group often critical of net neutrality) as “needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo.” Oliver also compared cable providers to drug cartels.
Oliver concluded his skewering of the FCC with a humorous call for viewers (described as “my lovely trolls”) to inundate the FCC’s website with comments (“Turn on caps lock and fly, my pretties.”). By the following morning, the FCC’s website was flooded with nearly 45,000 comments, causing it to temporarily crash. This was one of the only times, in recent memory, where a media personality has been able to drive such a strong response to a proposed regulatory action.
Oliver’s comments drew responses from FCC employees, including Commissioner Wheeler, who took pains to make it clear that he was “not a dingo.” Nu Wexler, a spokesman for Twitter, stated that Oliver’s clip was widely praised in a meeting of net neutrality lobbyists and researchers, who thought that it “explained a very complex policy issue in a simple, compelling way” and that it had a wider reach than many expensive, targeted advocacy campaigns. On the other side of the table, leaders at the National Cable Television Association, Wheeler’s former employer, screened this segment, and, according to an industry veteran “They knew they had a problem.”
Virtually every major print media outlet covered Oliver’s broadcast and it’s aftermath, helping draw further attention to net neutrality. A YouTube clip of Oliver’s net neutrality rant would ultimately end up with more than 8 million views. What was so impactful about Oliver’s presentation on net neutrality, allowing it to both move viewers to action, and scare telecom firms?
First, in watching this clip, one can’t help but notice that Oliver makes effective use of simple, humorous analogies to explain exactly how net neutrality works, avoiding a preachy approach in favor of a powerful brand of mockery. As a result, even those who might have started out viewing net neutrality with minimal interest, or found it too confusing, couldn’t help but understand it better, and give deeper thought to it’s implications.
What’s more, as Soraya McDonald of the Washington Post noted, Oliver uses a powerful tactic often seen on the Daily Show: drawing attention to government cronyism. Oliver’s comments about lobbyists and dingoes underscore the reality that employees of regulatory agencies, and corporate lobbyists, often move between each other’s worlds in a revolving door fashion, sometimes creating conflicts of interest. Drawing attention to this reality can be an effective tactic for raising public outrage at such behavior, and thus making an issue even more visible.
Oliver’s success in tackling net neutrality raises broader questions about whether he, and those who share his approach, have the potential to transform our political conversation. While only time will tell, it is clear that Oliver has a unique ability to both connect with his viewers, and encourage them to speak out. This could have a real impact how our nation grapples with the issues of the day.
Conclusion: It is critical to remember that the fight over net neutrality is far from over. The FCC’s ruling is likely to face years of legal challenges from telecommunications firms, not to mention strong resistance by many in Congress.
Given the increasingly partisan nature of this issue, a shift in who controls the White House, and thus appoints FCC commissioners, could easily alter the composition of the agency. This may lead to the appointment of commissioners who might take an alternative approach to regulating the Internet.
It is also difficult to isolate any one of the factors discussed above, as a primary reason for why efforts to push the FCC to protect net neutrality have succeeded thus far. Neither citizen activism, nor the efforts of politicians or corporations, functions alone, or exists in a vacuum.
What’s more, net neutrality is a unique issue, in that it garnered strong support from a unique trifecta of highly engaged citizen activists, influential corporations, and leading politicians. Few policy positions can claim such a broad array of backers. Thus, we should be careful to draw conclusions, in applying the lessons of net neutrality to other national matters.
Yet, the fact remains, there are important takeaways from this political battle. Accessible framing of an issue, and activists who make effective use of online tools, can move the needle on the issues of the day. The voice of corporations is almost always influential, and it remains to be seen whether any regulation can be implemented without some sort of support from major businesses.
Presidential influence also raises interesting questions, in that while there is no question that the president’s voice is an important one, in a polarized atmosphere, the president’s voice can quickly imbue an issue with a strongly partisan character. Lastly, those in our media who wish to impact the public’s thinking, and inspire action, can do so successfully, though such efforts might depend on venues like HBO (home of Last Week Tonight), which give media personalities greater creative control over their content.
In February, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to reclassify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, and to bar Internet service providers from treating various types of lawful online content differently. This ruling forbids both traditional broadband companies, such as Comcast and Time Warner, as well as mobile carriers like AT&T and T Mobile, from either blocking or throttling access to any website. Additionally, these firms cannot, in exchange for compensation, offer preferential treatment for particular Web domains.
The FCC’s decision, which follows more than a decade of battles in Congress, federal courts, and the arena of popular public opinion, marks a pivotal moment in the struggle over net neutrality. While this fight is far from over, events thus far offer a fascinating look at how highly contested issues are framed, debated, and decided, in today’s regulatory and political environment.
Names Matter: The term “net neutrality” was coined by Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, in his 2003 paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, which offered an in-depth exploration of, and proposals around, issues of content differentiation and discrimination in Internet access.
Neutrality is a powerful concept, within the American political framework. It brings to mind ideals of fairness, and of the Constitutional mandate that every American is guaranteed equal treatment before the law, both of which figure prominently in our national self-perception. It lies at the very foundation of our judicial system, and of the belief that we are a government “of laws, and not of men”, where every individual must have a chance to be heard in court, and ought to be judged on the merits of his or her case, without favor or bias.
This outlook has permeated throughout our culture. It is no coincidence that, in his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts analogized the role of a Supreme Court justice to that of a baseball umpire, the quintessential neutral actor, who is responsible for officiating by evenly applying the rules of the game. Describing non-preferential Internet access as “net neutrality,” makes this concept, at least at first glance, immediately more accessible to the American public.
The phrase “neutrality” is also devoid of the partisan baggage which alternate wording might carry. Suppose Wu had used the term “net equality” instead of net neutrality. That might bring to mind the conversation around marriage equality or income inequality, which are hotly contested matters, where an individual’s views are highly correlated with where one falls on the political spectrum.
Such a framing might have laid the groundwork for not just members of Congress, but rank and file conservative voters, to oppose “net equality” as some sort of Big Government scheme to regulate the Internet. Instead, polls suggest that most conservative voters actually support net neutrality, and prominent conservative groups such as the Christian Coalition have backed it as well.
Focused Internet-based activism works: For the past several years, Web communities like Reddit, along with activist organizations who engage their members primarily through online efforts, including Move On, Daily Kos,Color Of Change, Free Press, have organized their members around the issue of net neutrality. These organizations were able to mobilize millions of people to file a record number of comments with the FCC, in favor of net neutrality, while organizing public hearings, rallies, and even an outdoor Jumbotron.
This helped both drive momentum in favor of net neutrality, and open a national conversation around the issue, with subject matter experts, including former FCC commissioners and academics who study technology issues, as well as newspaper columnists and editorial boards, offering prominent public commentary in support of net neutrality.
Activists leveraged the power of digital connectivity, and specifically of an engaged online audience, around an issue of regulatory policy. This was a groundbreaking approach. The battle around net neutrality didn’t involve using the Internet to organize and rally Americans around a charismatic figure with an unusual personal story (as was done in President Obama’s 2008 campaign). Rather, net neutrality sought to raise awareness around a rather abstract aspect of the commercial Internet business, which is overseen by a faceless, unelected body of regulators.
This is a notable distinguishing feature of net neutrality efforts. While the Obama campaign set a new standard in effective use of the Web as an organizing and communications tool, it was still centered on a highly visible candidate, who enjoyed a large campaign war chest, and was running under the auspices of a mainstream party, in what was a favorable environment for Democrats.
Net neutrality, on the other hand, started out as an obscure policy question, and was brought into the public consciousness by Internet-savvy political bloggers and tech geeks. It eventually became a major national issue, where this unlikely army has (for now) prevailed. This was essentially unprecedented in American history, and may offer a blueprint for how activists can use Internet-facilitated organizing to win favorable outcomes in future Washington battles.
Corporate interests remain highly influential: Still, this aspect of the net neutrality struggle doesn't tell the full story. Net neutrality was made possible in part because companies, both large corporations and smaller businesses, were in favor of it.
If Internet service providers were allowed to discriminate either in favor of or against certain web domains or types of content, in terms of speed and ease of access, while favoring others, this might harm both established Net presences like Netflix and Amazon, as well the startups we haven’t heard of yet, but who could one day change the way we live.
With this in mind, in July 2014, the Internet Association, an industry trade group made up of powerhouses including Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon, as well as a number of rapidly growing startups, offered comments to the FCC in favor of net neutrality, and vocally opposed the creation of paid “fast lanes” or any other sort of preferential or discriminatory treatment for any web domain.
This was followed by Internet Slowdown Day in September 2014, whendozens of online domains, most notably Netflix, Dropbox, Reddit and Vimeo, deliberately displayed a “loading” icon, indicating that a particular Internet page was opening slowly. While these domains didn’t actually limit or slow access, they used their power and popularity to raise awareness, and shape the public debate around open Internet access and net neutrality.
The Internet Association also worked to influence Congressional thinking on this issue. In fact, the last few years have seen a major increase in political efforts by Silicon Valley firms. In 2014, major computer and Internet firms spent nearly $140 million on lobbying efforts; this was amongst the highest totals of any American industry (telecom firms, who oppose net neutrality also expended a substantial amount, though less than the aforementioned Internet businesses, on lobbying). Google is now one of the nation’s top 5 corporations in terms of money spent lobbying. Political engagement by Internet firms not only involves more money, but has also become more widespread and effective, over the past several years.
It is difficult to quantify just how much impact non-profit net neutrality activists have had on the decision process, as compared to corporations motivated by financial concerns. In a recent piece, Alex Pareene argued that the FCC’s favorable net neutrality ruling would not have occurred if it were not supported by powerful corporations; in this case, wealthy Web companies. Pareene also argued that the role of such interests was far more pivotal than that of any grassroots organizing ventures, and that American politicians were “responsive almost solely to the interests and desires of their rich constituents and interest groups that primarily represent big business.”
Pareene draws upon the research of Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, who found that in the United States, business interest groups, along with economic elites, have a far greater impact on government decisions than “average citizens and mass-based interest groups.” Pareene’s arguments are particularly compelling in light of the intense opposition of telecom firms to net neutrality. That is, would net neutrality have prevailed against these moneyed interests, if it were just a dedicated effort by committed activists, and without a deep-pocketed ally; in this case, Web-focused technology companies? Such an outcome is difficult to imagine.
Still, Pareene’s view seems overly cynical. As noted earlier, the organizing model around net neutrality, and it’s success, is in some respects unprecedented. This might offer a model for future advocacy actions, and in particular, successful challenges to entrenched corporate interests. Pareene’s piece, which sees dollar-heavy interests as being all-powerful, doesn’t seem to account for this reality. As a result it seems to oversimplify the power of money in swaying final outcomes.
Presidential involvement yields mixed results: In 2007, before he had won a single Democratic presidential primary, President Obama pledged to back net neutrality if elected president, and to select FCC appointees who prioritized this issue as well. In the years since his first presidential campaign, some called the president’s commitment to net neutrality into question, fearing that he might backtrack on his earlier promises.
However, in November 2014, as the FCC moved towards announcing a final decision, President Obama released a strong statement in favor of net neutrality, noting that “an open Internet is essential to the American economy” and weighing in against any sort of differential treatment, by Internet service providers, in favor of or against particular Web content. Obama also offered a blueprint for how net neutrality ought to be structured. Obama did, however, take care to note that the FCC was an independent regulatory agency, and he was only outlining his own preferences.
While Obama’s statement earned praise from groups like Free Press and the Internet Association, he also drew swift criticism from Republican legislators. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted that net neutrality was “Obamacare for the Internet…..Internet should not operate at the speed of government.” Meanwhile, Senator John Thune (R-SD), who now heads the Senate Commerce Committee, warned that Obama’s approach would “stifle” the Internet.
After the FCC’s February net neutrality ruling, Republican members of Congress opened an investigation into whether President Obama had exerted “improper influence” on the FCC’s decision process. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler acknowledged that the president’s public statements had shaped his thinking on net neutrality, as had the millions of comments from the public, but denied that the White House had otherwise improperly impacted or influenced the FCC’s decision-making process.
In this inquiry, members of Congress sought to learn more about Wheeler’s November 2014 meeting with Jeff Zients, a senior White House economic adviser. In a recent hearing, Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) contended that Zients told Wheeler that “things had changed”, and exerted pressure on Wheeler to issue a strong ruling in favor of net neutrality, leading to the FCC’s February ruling. Wheeler denied these allegations, and argued that as “CEO of an independent agency” he did not feel “obligated to follow the president’s recommendation,” nor had he received any “secret instructions.”
While the ultimate outcome of the Congressional battle over the FCC’s ruling remains uncertain, some House Republicans are vowing to pass a Congressional Review Act to nullify the FCC’s ruling, while other members have called for limiting the FCC’s budget, as well as it’s authority to issuesuch rulings in the future.
This raises the question: Did President Obama’s open support for a strong approach to net neutrality, do more harm than good? Prior to November 2014, Republican leadership did broadly oppose net neutrality. That hasn't changed. Yet, given today’s highly divided national climate, Obama’s remarks might have further inflamed partisan sentiments around this issue, and helped turn the FCC into yet another Capitol Hill football. What was likely to be gained from the president’s public statements, other than greater legislative conflict?
Perhaps Obama believed that this was a matter of historic national significance, and so it was crucial for him to demonstrate leadership, and take a strong stand. He might have also believed that presidential advocacy for net neutrality could shape public opinion around the issue, and underscore it’s importance, especially for left-leaning voters. And of course, it is quite possible that the president hoped to influence the FCC’s decision process, by signaling to Chairman Wheeler, and other appointees backed by his party, how he hoped they might rule.
Still, President Obama’s actions demonstrate both the promise and pitfalls of presidential advocacy, particularly during a time of great acrimony. While a president can use his position to rally support and raise awareness around a cause he believes in, such politicking might anger segments of the electorate and establishment, who instinctively oppose his policies. In the process, this can make it more challenging to implement laws and regulations supported by the president.
Media figures can have a tangible impact on both the political narrative and citizen actions: We often hear claims that talk show hosts, filmmakers, and entertainers can help shape political outcomes. Those who followed the 2004 presidential election might remember speculation that a music video by Eminem could help motivate young voters to turn out against President Bush. Much has also been written about the impact of Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s respective brands of satire on American politics.
Yet, it is rather challenging to pinpoint instances of a popular talk show host, or other media personality, not only impacting public discourse, but moving his or her audience to take tangible action around an issue. Daily Show alumnus John Oliver’s weekly Sunday HBO show, Last Week Tonight, is a notable exception.
Oliver’s June 1, 2014 broadcast tackled net neutrality head on. In a 13 minute segment, which Oliver began by warning that net neutrality was “boring by C Span standards“, he invoked names as varied as Google, Usain Bolt, and Superman, while describing the FCC’s frequent hiring of former telecommunications lobbyists (most notably Chairman Tom Wheeler, a former head of the National Cable Television Association, an industry group often critical of net neutrality) as “needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo.” Oliver also compared cable providers to drug cartels.
Oliver concluded his skewering of the FCC with a humorous call for viewers (described as “my lovely trolls”) to inundate the FCC’s website with comments (“Turn on caps lock and fly, my pretties.”). By the following morning, the FCC’s website was flooded with nearly 45,000 comments, causing it to temporarily crash. This was one of the only times, in recent memory, where a media personality has been able to drive such a strong response to a proposed regulatory action.
Oliver’s comments drew responses from FCC employees, including Commissioner Wheeler, who took pains to make it clear that he was “not a dingo.” Nu Wexler, a spokesman for Twitter, stated that Oliver’s clip was widely praised in a meeting of net neutrality lobbyists and researchers, who thought that it “explained a very complex policy issue in a simple, compelling way” and that it had a wider reach than many expensive, targeted advocacy campaigns. On the other side of the table, leaders at the National Cable Television Association, Wheeler’s former employer, screened this segment, and, according to an industry veteran “They knew they had a problem.”
Virtually every major print media outlet covered Oliver’s broadcast and it’s aftermath, helping draw further attention to net neutrality. A YouTube clip of Oliver’s net neutrality rant would ultimately end up with more than 8 million views. What was so impactful about Oliver’s presentation on net neutrality, allowing it to both move viewers to action, and scare telecom firms?
First, in watching this clip, one can’t help but notice that Oliver makes effective use of simple, humorous analogies to explain exactly how net neutrality works, avoiding a preachy approach in favor of a powerful brand of mockery. As a result, even those who might have started out viewing net neutrality with minimal interest, or found it too confusing, couldn’t help but understand it better, and give deeper thought to it’s implications.
What’s more, as Soraya McDonald of the Washington Post noted, Oliver uses a powerful tactic often seen on the Daily Show: drawing attention to government cronyism. Oliver’s comments about lobbyists and dingoes underscore the reality that employees of regulatory agencies, and corporate lobbyists, often move between each other’s worlds in a revolving door fashion, sometimes creating conflicts of interest. Drawing attention to this reality can be an effective tactic for raising public outrage at such behavior, and thus making an issue even more visible.
Oliver’s success in tackling net neutrality raises broader questions about whether he, and those who share his approach, have the potential to transform our political conversation. While only time will tell, it is clear that Oliver has a unique ability to both connect with his viewers, and encourage them to speak out. This could have a real impact how our nation grapples with the issues of the day.
Conclusion: It is critical to remember that the fight over net neutrality is far from over. The FCC’s ruling is likely to face years of legal challenges from telecommunications firms, not to mention strong resistance by many in Congress.
Given the increasingly partisan nature of this issue, a shift in who controls the White House, and thus appoints FCC commissioners, could easily alter the composition of the agency. This may lead to the appointment of commissioners who might take an alternative approach to regulating the Internet.
It is also difficult to isolate any one of the factors discussed above, as a primary reason for why efforts to push the FCC to protect net neutrality have succeeded thus far. Neither citizen activism, nor the efforts of politicians or corporations, functions alone, or exists in a vacuum.
What’s more, net neutrality is a unique issue, in that it garnered strong support from a unique trifecta of highly engaged citizen activists, influential corporations, and leading politicians. Few policy positions can claim such a broad array of backers. Thus, we should be careful to draw conclusions, in applying the lessons of net neutrality to other national matters.
Yet, the fact remains, there are important takeaways from this political battle. Accessible framing of an issue, and activists who make effective use of online tools, can move the needle on the issues of the day. The voice of corporations is almost always influential, and it remains to be seen whether any regulation can be implemented without some sort of support from major businesses.
Presidential influence also raises interesting questions, in that while there is no question that the president’s voice is an important one, in a polarized atmosphere, the president’s voice can quickly imbue an issue with a strongly partisan character. Lastly, those in our media who wish to impact the public’s thinking, and inspire action, can do so successfully, though such efforts might depend on venues like HBO (home of Last Week Tonight), which give media personalities greater creative control over their content.
