In response to Jim Killebrew's Persepctive on Net Neutrality

To the editor:

Once again Jim Killebrew is simply repeating the ultra-conservative Republican Party line on a topic to express his vitriol against the Obama Administration. However in choosing Net Neutrality as his whipping post his position is actually arguing “against” freedom and liberty, not for freedom and liberty.

He argues that “once again, people all over the United States, all over the world, who have found a free communication system that has become essentially part of the DNA of American culture, reaching out to touch the entire world, will eventually be stymied by the touch of an over-reaching government headed by the current Administration.”

The Wild West frontier days of the internet certainly have been a wonderful engine of free market success and international collaboration. However, the internet like the wagon trails of old that became paved (and regulated) highways, is currently struggling as other world governments and companies fight to “claim’ domains and institute their own taxes and regulations. As in the Wild West, it is time for some regulation for those “claims” so that the virtual land remains in the public domain. I would challenge Mr. Killebrew’s assessment that the internet was and is a “free communication system.” Mr. Killebrew may have forgotten that it was US government ingenuity working with American businesses that funded and created the structure that has become the international worldwide web, so regulation of said “super highway” is not unreasonable by its funding co-creator.


Freedom is only possible when responsibility and structure allow it to bloom. Net Neutrality and some regulation are the ways that we keep the information super highway as accessible for the future of innovation and communication as it was in the last twenty years. Currently in the United States it has been the practice that Internet Service Providers aren’t able to restrict access to websites and services. However, there is a growing trend to doing just that.

For example, as illustrated by business insider news, Comcast would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers as Comcast and NBC are affiliated. Some providers would like to charge more for one kind of content (i.e. Netflix) over another. Without Net Neutrality providers could theoretically prevent individuals from accessing certain newspapers, philosophical topics or even religious topics (something Mr. Killebrew often argues are central to Democracy). Just as we don’t allow businesses to post false “road closed ahead” signs on our highways to redirect traffic in their favor, it is unethical for the same to happen in the virtual world but without Net Neutrality enforcements the corporate bandits can create a wild west of fake road blocks and redirections.

The implementation of Net Neutrality through regulation prevents monopolies such Comcast from being able to discriminate content. They have to provide same speed and same access. And let us not forget no one is getting “Free Internet” as either businesses, municipalities or individuals are paying for access to that road, so regulated fair practice is not only reasonable but responsible. (And I can imagine the anger Mr. Killebrew might express against the Obama Administration if American Security Interests were threatened due to Cyber Attacks for which we were unprepared, so they are responsible to protect but not regulate.)

There may be future taxes, fees as the upkeep of the security and freedom of the internet is possibly just as complicated as maintaining our physical roads. If we are to prevent future cyber-attacks on American corporations and infrastructure, the Air Force and other Government agencies working to ensure that security deserves internet specific funding. If the Republican House and Senate (or a future Republican President) manage to stop Net Neutrality they will not be enhancing freedom, they will be lining the pockets of corporate racketeering interests and the poorest in society will once again be restricted from access to means accessible to the better funded.

If we really want to argue for freedom, free market expansion and growth why doesn’t Logan County think about teaching Coding as a required course starting in elementary school as this is the language of our future financial freedom?

What if Logan County could entice Google to build google fiber for all of our citizens as a test of its power in a rural community, then we could see the prairies dance with innovation.

There are so many internet related freedom conversations to be had, but arguing against Net Neutrality isn’t one of them. Net Neutrality is not a danger to freedom, it is the pathway to keep our accessible internet accessible as possible.

Tara Samples, Lincoln IL

[Posted February 14, 2015]