How to Define “Broadband Social Justice”

The key net neutrality issue for people who have not adopted broadband is not whether they should be “for or against” it. The net neutrality debate itself has become a broadband adoption barrier. The latest vitriolic exchange (see here, here, and here), between James Rucker, who heads up Color of Change, a Silicon Valley-based advocacy organization, and Congressman Bobby Rush, who has served Illinois’ 1st Congressional District since 1993, is a case in point.

The public interest groups that support net neutrality have been far more accommodating of varying interpretations of the end-to-end principle (the central design component of the Internet) than they have been of differences of opinion when it comes to defining “broadband social justice.” Last year, Barbara van Schewick, an Associate Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, published a book laying out the differences between the “broad” definition and the “narrow” definition of the end-to-end principle. The purpose (or, at least, the effect) of the book was to facilitate collaboration by describing, in highly specific terms, the policy implications of each definition, so that proponents of net neutrality would be in a better position to understand the different interpretations of its underlying principle.

Advocates and policy makers should also recognize two differing approaches to “broadband social justice”—a “blue” definition and a “green” definition, if you will.

The blue definition sees the key component of broadband social justice as broadband adoption—increasing the number of people who are able to use the Internet. Under this view, broadband adoption must be prioritized before all else. The blue definition holds that while net neutrality is a concern, it is not a primary concern where broadband is not being adopted (for want of access, low enough prices, etc.). The green definition, on the other hand, turns on the importance of network integrity and protecting the ability of people to do what they want to do after they go online.

When the Egyptian government blocked demonstrators from accessing the Internet during the still ongoing Tahrir Square revolt, some groups were all over it. They decried it as anti-democratic and held it up as an example of what would happen without strong net neutrality rules here in the United States. These groups have been reliable and persistent net neutrality advocates here and abroad. They have been completely against throttling traffic or blocking access to the Internet where it already exists. But when it comes to improving adoption rates right here in the United States, their opinion is barely audible. I went five pages in, on Free Press’s Press Release page, before I gave up looking for a single mention of broadband adoption. Where the debate shifts from net neutrality to access and adoption, these folks tune out. Similarly, the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC)—another organization that Rucker has attacked—did not address, on its blog, the Egyptian government’s speech suppression.

So, who’s right? Both! And that’s okay.