Nonprofits Have a Stake in the Latest Debates About Keeping the Internet Open

[Source: The Chronicle of Philanthropy, by Vincent Stehle, October 3, 2010]

“Don’t be evil.”

It may sound like the code of conduct for the fledgling witches and wizards arriving at Hogwarts. But it is actually the unofficial code of a different clan of young magicians—the staff of Google.

The phrase “Don’t be evil” is even enshrined in the founders’ letter to Google’s initial public offering to encapsulate a cornerstone of its philosophy to provide people with unbiased access to information.

The best way to provide such access over the Internet can be summarized in two words—net neutrality.

The idea is that anybody who uses the Internet will have equal access to every piece of information available, without special treatment or discrimination on the part of Internet service providers, be they cable companies, phone companies, or public utilities. And it is a principle that is critical to the success of nonprofits in the marketplace of ideas.

Net neutrality has been the default law of the land since the Internet’s founding more than 40 years ago. It ensures that all kinds of information and all people are treated equally, without special pleading or payments. Advocates of net neutrality point out that the free and open nature of the Internet has been a font of innovation and the forge from which our most dynamic new companies—companies like Google—have been created.

But in recent years, a battle has been raging between consumer groups and telecommunications companies over the fate of the Internet—whether it will remain neutral in the way content is delivered or whether phone and cable companies will be able to offer special deals featuring their own content. And by comparison, will these same companies be able to degrade the experience of content that flows outside of the entertainment channels they control.

From the start, Google has been one of the most forceful advocates for an open Internet. So it was with great shock and disappointment—and perhaps even a sense of betrayal among allies and media policy activists—when Google announced in August a joint proposal with the phone giant Verizon over new ways to manage network traffic, one that in particular exempts the rapidly expanding mobile Internet from regulations governing network neutrality.

Why should nonprofits care about any of this?

Everyone should be concerned about the free flow of information and expression as the basis of an open society and healthy democracy. But nonprofits in particular have an even higher stake in the open Internet.
First is the obvious need to cultivate an informed electorate amid a crisis in journalism, in which newsrooms are being emptied of investigative reporters and the airwaves are filling up with harsh and partisan opinionators.

But beyond this reality, nonprofits have greatly benefited from the new information ecology, in which every organization is able to publish directly to an infinite audience of prospective supporters and contributors.
Before the Internet, a nonprofit organization that wanted to make its case would have had to attract the interest of somebody in the news or entertainment media. It could attempt to generate a news story that might be covered by a newspaper or broadcaster. It could cut a public-service announcement that might, with some luck, appear for 30 or 60 seconds, frequently at 2 a.m. in front of an audience of slumbering “viewers” who forgot to turn off their television sets. In short, nonprofits were largely invisible.

The advent of the Internet has resulted in an explosion of meaningful communications between nonprofit organizations and their supporters. Charities and foundations are now able to tell their stories without permission, without interpretation—and without the snoring.

The capacity of nonprofits to communicate directly with their supporters and constituents has expanded their ability to generate financial support and deliver programs that make a difference. And that capacity should not be undermined by a newly constrained Internet economy.

The arrival of the Obama administration raised hopes among net-neutrality proponents. In a campaign stop in the fall of 2007, Mr. Obama declared, “I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality, because once providers start to privilege some applications or Web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out and we all lose.”

He concluded, “The Internet is perhaps the most open network in history, and we have to keep it that way.”

Perhaps ironically, the campaign stop was at Google’s headquarters, in Mountain View, Calif.

So what happened on the way from Mountain View to Washington? A lot.

There were some very positive developments. For one thing, President Obama and Congress passed a $787-billion plan to jump-start the economy that included $7.2-billion to expand broadband Internet services to people in poor or rural neighborhoods. The stimulus plan also required that the Federal Communications Commission develop a comprehensive plan to spread broadband services across the country.

But the vast infusion of federal dollars toward growing broadband service may have obscured other developments. While the legislative and executive branches were busy expanding Internet access, the judicial branch was also busy. And two unrelated rulings provide the critical backdrop for the shifting political fortunes of net neutrality.

In the first place, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruling on a dispute concerning allegations that Comcast was improperly limiting a certain type of file-sharing method, determined that the Federal Communications Commission has no authority to regulate the Internet.

Got that? It’s clear that any student or job seeker or voter or artist or citizen of the 21st century needs access to the Internet. But the federal court said that the federal government could not regulate broadband Internet service.

Let’s stop and think for a moment what happens when regulators fail to have the information and authority to regulate industries. We have only to look at the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and the equally disastrous meltdown in the regulation of the banking and financial industries, which culminated in the financial collapse of 2008, to show why it is critical to have government oversight of essential industries.

The other federal court case worth mentioning is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in January essentially discarded election spending limits on corporations and unions, threatening to unleash a flood of corporate contributions in time for the midterm elections fast upon us.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have pursued historic overhaul of the health-care and financial-service industries, over the strenuous and exceedingly well-financed objections of those special interests.

Against the backdrop of bruising political battles and the prospect of an avalanche of campaign cash flowing from the telecommunications industry, perhaps it’s understandable that the White House and the Federal Communications Commission and even apparently stalwart advocates like Google may choose to accept a compromise in crafting rules to maintain an open Internet.

In the first half of 2010, the telecommunications industry has flooded Washington with $43-million in lobbying expenses, and it has engaged an army of highly paid former government regulators and lawmakers to ensure a favorable regulatory environment.

But for nonprofits and individuals, who depend on an even playing field to compete for attention, it is still important to understand the stakes and the political dynamics that we may be powerless to restrain. And in the meantime, nonprofits should voice their opposition to new rules that would leave them at a disadvantage.

Free Press and Public Knowledge are among the nonprofit organizations leading the analysis and community-organizing efforts to promote net neutrality. And groups like the Nonprofit Technology Network have made an effort to educate nonprofits about the increasing threats to their free speech rights.

We may not prevail. But we should not lose our voice without a fight. And we should not kid ourselves by believing the reassuring speeches of politicians or being swayed by the self-interested actions of telecommunications companies.

For nonprofit organizations, “Don’t be evil” is not a corporate slogan but a part of our mission that we take for granted.

Perhaps we need a new slogan.

“Don’t be naïve.”

Vincent Stehle is a regular columnist for The Chronicle of Philanthropy and a philanthropic consultant in New York.