Analysis: Net Neutrality ‘opponents’ need a name, rallying cry

The telecom industry seems to understand the importance of good PR as well as any other modern-day American industry. So I’ve often wondered why it’s not doing a better job of counteracting the Net neutrality movement (this week’s Comcast decision notwithstanding).

I’m not sure who coined the term “Net neutrality” but it’s a good one. Even before you know what it’s about, it just sounds like a nice thing—and the warm fuzzy verbiage extends into most definitions of Net neutrality, such as this one provided by The Free Press consumer group:

Network Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies.

Beyond simple network and traffic management concerns, service providers’ main business issue with Net neutrality is that it seeks to prevent them from charging more for certain classes of service. The service providers say that restriction would be akin to FedEx or UPS being prevented from charging more for overnight delivery—and a lot of consumers should be able to see the logic of that argument.

The problem is that service providers never came up with a succinct term to define their position. Someone might ask a presidential candidate “Are you pro-life or pro-choice?” and most people would know and understand the arguments on both sides [Editor’s Note: though the nuanced politics and linguistics behind those two terms shouldn’t be underestimated either]. But it’s not like that in this case. Surely there ought to be a more clearly articulated alternative to Net neutrality than simply anti-Net neutrality.

The telecom industry didn’t help itself by coining the term “deep packet inspection” to describe the software tools that can help service providers determine how consumers are using the Internet, and which companies like Comcast have used to limit bandwidth-guzzling applications such as BitTorrent. The term sounds about as friendly as a full body scanner—and has been perhaps even less well received by consumers.

The Comcast decision may be a temporary victory for service providers, but the Net neutrality debate is not over. Service providers have a reasonable point of view to get across—that the policies endorsed by Net neutrality advocates would stifle Internet innovation and investment because non-differentiated services would be less profitable. They need a catchy way to convey that in about three words or less.

Got any ideas? Post them in the “comments” section below.

Editor’s Note: PS—I’m sure we’ve opened ourselves up to some sarcastic responses as well, that’s ok we – and the telecom industry – can take it : >