Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Net Neutrality and Religious Advocacy
Net Neutrality and Religious Advocacy
Apr 3, 2025 5:42 AM

Yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) held a Senate hearing on his proposed bill, the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act of 2014. The bill, reading at just four pages, serves as a tool bat “paid prioritization” in the network traffic business in an effort to maintain petition in that market. This idea, known as net neutrality, as explained by Joe Carter, assumes “that a public information network should aspire to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally” as well as equal treatment in “giving users the bandwidth to reach the internet-connected services they prefer.” All of this e under threat, as a DC Circuit Court struck down the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) power to regulate net neutrality on January 14 of this year.

Under proposed FCC rules poised to take effect this November, internet providers, like Comcast, would be able to charge tolls to broadband users, like Google, for speedier service to its site, with the ultimate cost burden being shifted upon consumers. The Christian Post explains how the new policy will impact faith based groups. Without net neutrality, service providers could censor the voices of religious advocacy groups, or anyone else unable to pay a premium, effectively violating the First Amendment and “stifl[ing] free speech rights.”

Since the FCC’s rollout of new regulations, Senator Leahy has mounted the “No Tollbooths For The Internet” campaign. Opponents of the bill argue that although traditional tolls are burdensome to drivers, they are essential in maintaining and repairing road systems for a mute. Similarly, it is argued that internet tolls would be charged panies to reach internet users in return for a superior service.

However, critics of Leahy’s proposal contend that it could inhibit investment in a faster delivery system for digital content. Additional costs can translate as an investment in the future of speedier content. As it stands, there is little incentive for a service provider to invest alone in such technology, but a partnership with broadband users makes this more likely.

Columbia law professor Tim Wu coined the term net neutrality and has kept to the transportation theme in a recent New Yorker piece, writing a rebuttal to opponents of net neutrality regulation:

It may be one thing for the rich to drive better cars; it would be another to divide public roads between rich and poor, ostensibly to avoid “congestion.” The prospect that the F.C.C. might allow a “fast lane” for some traffic, leaving everyone else in a slower lane, has ignited the argument that private inequality must have its limits, and that some public spaces must remain open to all.

But is the internet a “public space” in the sense that mands the same status as a public good? The further prompts the question whether it is an essential good to be accessed by all and at the same rate, as Wu later asserts that the internet is “almost as necessary [as electricity] to contemporary life.”

A lot of e into play with the internet — one must first purchase puter or device and pay for all the costs and fees associated with the product. This negates many Americans from the equation. One must first have a product to utilize the service of the internet, just as one must have a car to use a toll road. Designating a service as essential opens up the issue of whether the product necessary to use it is also an essential good. Companies could still provide their site to internet users at a slower and cheaper rate, just as drivers could forgo a toll to save a buck in exchange for a longer detour. Either way, both get to the same destination.

By contrast, Leahy’s bill aims to prevent discriminatory practices in the internet industry as an instrument to petition among firms “based on their merit and content, not on a financial relationship with a service provider.” Dylan Pahman describes how net neutrality had ensured this until it was struck down in January:

Whoever is responsible for and best at enforcing it, net neutrality had this going for it: it was a relatively stable, relatively open playing-field petition…. [T]he fact panies tried to get around it via copyright protection privileges shows that it was, in fact, doing something to enforce freedom petition. Now, without it, there is an opportunity for concentration of power … [which] can lead to instability, and instability leads to popular calls for state regulation, which tend in practice toward cronyism. Certainly, such a trajectory is not inevitable, but it is now more likely, giving good reason for pause at the idea that we do not need net neutrality — or something like it — in the future.

Though consumers may benefit from faster service, eliminating net neutrality is also something that would curtail innovation and inhibit petition from startups that do not have the funds to partner with internet providers. A new product or service could be deferred because the firm did not have the same access to the market as a larger firm. Senator Leahy’s bill would provide an assurance to current and future entrepreneurs and innovators that they will continue to have equal and open access to a platform for their ideas.

Faster service is inevitable as technology advances over time, but restricting access to the market and new ideas can be irreversible, culminating in the concentration of power among the strongest players. Leahy has purported his bill to be a “Bill of Rights” for access to the online world, arguing that it is the “ultimate marketplace of ideas, where everyone has a voice and the best products or services succeed based upon their own merit.”

The absence of net neutrality will likely impede this bastion of ideas. Open access to the free market, including the “ultimate marketplace of ideas,” is indispensable to human flourishing, and without such economic liberty the creation of wealth for all members of society may be needlessly inhibited.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Verse of the Day
  Commentary on Today's Verse   Commentary on Matthew 7:1-6   (Read Matthew 7:1-6)   We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who...
Verse of the Day
  Commentary on Today's Verse   Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:1-3   (Read 1 Corinthians 13:1-3)   The excellent way had in view in the close of the former chapter, is not what is meant by charity in our common use of the word, almsgiving, but love in its fullest meaning; true love to God and man. Without this, the most glorious gifts are...
Verse of the Day
  Commentary on Today's Verse   Commentary on James 3:1-12   (Read James 3:1-12)   We are taught to dread an unruly tongue, as one of the greatest evils. The affairs of mankind are thrown into confusion by the tongues of men. Every age of the world, and every condition of life, private or public, affords examples of this. Hell has more to do...
Verse of the Day
  Commentary on Today's Verse   Commentary on Proverbs 10:19   (Read Proverbs 10:19)   Those that speak much, speak much amiss. He that checks himself is a wise man, and therein consults his own peace.   Proverbs 10:19 In-Context   17 Whoever heeds discipline shows the way to life, but whoever ignores correction leads others astray.   18 Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads...
Verse of the Day
  2 Corinthians 12:9 In-Context   7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.   8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me.   9 But he said to me, My grace is sufficient...
Verse of the Day
  John 3:18 In-Context   16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.   17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.   18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,...
Verse of the Day
  Deuteronomy 4:29 In-Context   27 The Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the Lord will drive you.   28 There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.   29 But if from there you seek the Lord your...
The Intersection of Christianity and Libertarianism
A brief summary of the article discussing the intersection of Christianity and libertarianism.
Verse of the Day
  Commentary on Today's Verse   Commentary on Deuteronomy 30:15-20   (Read Deuteronomy 30:15-20)   What could be said more moving, and more likely to make deep and lasting impressions? Every man wishes to obtain life and good, and to escape death and evil; he desires happiness, and dreads misery. So great is the compassion of the Lord, that he has favoured men, by...
Verse of the Day
  1 Corinthians 1:10 In-Context   8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.   9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.   10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved