Internet Think

There are many lawyers and policymakers now engaged in debating laws concerning high speed broadband connections to the Internet. What do they mean by “the Internet”? Does it matter what they mean? This essay suggests that how “the Internet” is understood has substantial legal, social, and cultural consequences. In particular, what is meant by “the Internet” determines which actors’ voices will be listened to, what arguments will be respected, and which goals will be considered legitimate. If “the Internet” means “a logical architecture” (as the original engineers would say it does), protections for speech may not be relevant, and that architecture could change at any time. If “the Internet” means “privately-owned pipes” (as the incumbent telephone companies would say it does), fundamental principles developed over centuries to avoid monopolies over communication may be lost. If “the Internet” means standards and relationships that give rise to persistent social worlds (as Internet futurists would say it does), economic arguments made by the owners of the transport pipes may be undermined. Both the FCC and Congress have been confronted with all three of these definitions at one time or another. Which one will be chosen to frame our domestic approach to “the Internet”? What effects will choosing one or another have on policy? This essay represents a brief exploration of this issue from my intuitive perspective that public policy should “protect the Internet.” I acknowledge this starting point, but I want to be open-minded about where this intuition leads and what stumbling blocks it will (and should) encounter. To the extent policymakers have an opportunity to choose one or another of these three definitions, I would like to understand what these choices mean in some detail. Then, instead of committing myself in advance to abstract economic talk or theories of democracy, I would like to understand the social and cultural implications of choosing one definition over another. If the shared goal of pro-“network neutrality” advo-