The Future of Broadband

Buoyed By Net-Neutrality Win, Internet Activists Prepare Next Campaign

A little-known trade deal may be their next target.

Protesters rally to support net neutrality outside of the Federal Communications Commission on May 15, 2014.
National Journal
Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
March 1, 2015, 3 p.m.

The clickt­iv­ists are on a roll.

Over the op­pos­i­tion of some of Wash­ing­ton’s most power­ful cor­por­ate in­terests, an un­likely grass­roots co­ali­tion came to­geth­er and suc­cess­fully lob­bied the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion to ad­opt the strongest net-neut­ral­ity rules pos­sible.

This wasn’t a fluke. Just a few years ago, many of the same groups turned the In­ter­net in­to a war zone over the Stop On­line Pir­acy Act. They viewed the copy­right bill, heav­ily backed by Hol­ly­wood and mu­sic in­terests, as an as­sault on the found­a­tion­al freedoms en­shrined in the In­ter­net and launched an on­line guer­rilla cam­paign that in­cluded thou­sands of web­sites shut­ting down in protest.

Law­makers promptly killed the bill and fled for the hills.

In­ter­net “slackt­iv­ism” is fre­quently de­rided as a pass­ive form of polit­ic­al en­gage­ment that doesn’t trans­late to real-world res­ults. But the wins on net neut­ral­ity and SOPA have shown that on­line cam­paigns can strike policy pay­dirt — par­tic­u­larly when the fate of the In­ter­net it­self is at stake. Pres­id­ent Obama him­self ac­know­ledged this after the FCC’s vote, send­ing a note to red­dit users thank­ing them for fight­ing to “keep the In­ter­net open and free.”

Now, the ragtag group of act­iv­ists may turn their at­ten­tion to an­oth­er wonky is­sue: the Trans-Pa­cific Part­ner­ship. And it would mean break­ing their al­li­ance with the White House.

The pro­posed free-trade deal is backed by Obama and con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans, who say it is needed to boost ex­ports in the Asia-Pa­cific re­gion and com­pete with a rising China. But Demo­crats have been largely du­bi­ous, cit­ing the lack of trans­par­ency and po­ten­tial that it could bol­ster power­ful glob­al com­pan­ies.

In­ter­net groups have skin in the game be­cause they fear the deal could lead to an ex­pan­sion of re­strict­ive copy­right poli­cing on the Web over­seas, as par­ti­cip­at­ing coun­tries would likely have to com­ply with U.S. in­tel­lec­tu­al-prop­erty laws. Fight for the Fu­ture, an open-In­ter­net ad­vocacy group, has blas­ted the pro­posed trade agree­ment as a plot that “would force SOPA-like In­ter­net cen­sor­ship on the world.”

A bill to grant “fast-track” au­thor­ity to the deal — mean­ing Con­gress could only ap­prove or re­ject the ne­go­ti­ated terms but not amend them — could re­sur­face in Con­gress as soon as this week. (Obama spent time last week talk­ing up the deal in some loc­al TV in­ter­views.) But des­pite their align­ment with the ad­min­is­tra­tion on net neut­ral­ity, In­ter­net groups have in­dic­ated they have no qualms break­ing from Obama to fur­ther their agenda.

“It used to be that pro­gress­ives were much more hes­it­ant to at­tack the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion. That’s gone,” said Har­old Feld, seni­or vice pres­id­ent of the con­sumer-ad­vocacy group Pub­lic Know­ledge.

“On­line act­iv­ists on both the right and the left are giv­ing up on the idea that they need to get the right people elec­ted and are in­stead fo­cus­ing on spe­cif­ic policy is­sues like net neut­ral­ity, like sur­veil­lance, be­cause that’s where the ac­tion is,” Feld ad­ded.

In­ter­net-free­dom groups see the trade deal as a dis­crete, win­nable policy goal, akin to net neut­ral­ity, and they are buoyed by the fact that it has been routinely ri­diculed by oth­er pro­gress­ive groups and even many Demo­crats in Con­gress. Last week, pop­u­list firebrand Sen. Eliza­beth War­ren penned an op-ed in The Wash­ing­ton Post tar­get­ing a clause in the “enorm­ous new treaty” that would “tilt the play­ing field in the United States fur­ther in fa­vor of big mul­tina­tion­al cor­por­a­tions.”

War­ren’s re­newed fo­cus on the trade pact has raised the at­ten­tion of In­ter­net groups, which are shrewdly aware of the Mas­sachu­setts Demo­crat’s abil­ity to take a wonky policy is­sue and make it a ral­ly­ing cry for the lib­er­al base.

“You can look at Eliza­beth War­ren as sort of hold­ing a big neon sign that says, ‘This way to the next pro­gress­ive win,’” Feld said. Add in op­pos­i­tion from oth­er groups like or­gan­ized labor and nurses, he ad­ded, and “TPP is ripe to be the next tar­get for the open-In­ter­net move­ment.”

But can In­ter­net groups win without the sup­port of big tech in­terests in the room? Un­like net neut­ral­ity or SOPA, the trade deal isn’t likely to at­tract in­tense lob­by­ing in­terest from tech gi­ants like Net­flix and Google.

The slackt­iv­ists don’t seem too wor­ried.

“The truth is, the act­iv­ist com­munity is bet­ter at win­ning than the tech com­pan­ies,” Mar­vin Am­mori, a tech-com­pany con­sult­ant, said. “I don’t know if they aren’t try­ing to win or don’t know how to win, but act­iv­ists know how to win.”

They also know they need to work to pro­tect their vic­tor­ies.

Cam­paign or­gan­izers who won the net-neut­ral­ity battle are also stress­ing the need to pro­tect the FCC de­cision from be­ing un­done by con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans.

“First and fore­most, we have to de­fend the [net-neut­ral­ity] rule,” said Dav­id Segal, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of De­mand Pro­gress, a lib­er­al group that works heav­ily on In­ter­net is­sues. “There have already been fledging at­tempts to un­der­mine it. The ques­tion is wheth­er the op­pos­i­tion will co­alesce around a par­tic­u­lar vehicle.”

Am­mori agreed that “net neut­ral­ity is still ‘next’ right now,” and said that open-In­ter­net groups are go­ing to work to pro­tect the FCC from any GOP re­venge plots. But he said he ex­pec­ted most le­gis­lat­ors to quietly move away from the is­sue, as they did after SOPA crumbled. “I see the same thing hap­pen­ing with net neut­ral­ity, with people crawl­ing un­der a rock.”

What We're Following See More »
“HOLY HELL TO PAY” IF TRUMP FIRES A.G.
Sen. Graham Supporting Sessions
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Sen. Lindsay Graham said he is '100 percent behind' embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and said there would be 'holy hell to pay' if President Donald Trump fires him. Graham also said that if the president went after special prosecutor Robert Mueller, who’s directing the investigation into possible contacts between Trump’s circle and Russia, that could be the 'beginning of the end of the Trump presidency, unless Mueller did something wrong.'"

Source:
AMiDST COMMS STAFF SHAKEUP
Sanders New WH Press Secretary
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"With little pomp or circumstance, Sarah Huckabee Sanders stepped up to the briefing room podium and got straight to business Friday, reading announcements about "Made in America Week" and a new executive order on defense. Minutes later, newly minted communications director Anthony Scaramucci announced she was formally taking over as White House press secretary. In the aftermath of a chaotic communications staff shakeup at the White House last week, there was little attention paid to a new milestone as Sanders assumed the role."

Source:
JOINT CHIEFS TO KEEP POLICY UNTIL GIVEN DIRECTIONS
No Instructions to Pentagon, No Change in Transgender Policy
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The highest ranking military officer in the country said that the military’s transgender policy won’t actively change until President Trump sends specific directions to the Pentagon. 'There will be no modifications to the current policy until the president’s direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance,' Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford wrote in a letter."

Source:
TO INVICTUS GAMES IN CANADA
FLOTUS First Trip Solo
5 hours ago
THE LATEST
SCARAMUCCI INSINUATED PRIEBUS LEAKED INFO
Two of Trump’s Top Advisors Feuding
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A long-simmering feud between two of President Trump’s top advisers reached a boiling point Thursday, as White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci publicly insinuated that chief of staff Reince Priebus is a leaker."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login