BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Applying The Trump Doctrine To Net Neutrality

This article is more than 5 years old.

President Trump’s approach to trade qualifies as a master class in political negotiation. When he imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on several Group of Seven (G7) countries, Canada vowed to retaliate and the European Commission issued a press release opposing the tariffs as “protectionism, pure and simple.” A matter of days after getting Europe and Canada to go on record as opposing tariffs as simple protectionism, Trump called their rhetorical bluff at the annual G7 Summit, where he proposed the elimination of all tariffs and subsidies.

When faced with the professed object of their desire, the other members of the G7 balked. Trump’s insistence on fair dealing revealed the truth about the G7’s approach to trade. The other members of the G7 don’t want truly fair and open trade; they want rules that let them hold the U.S. to a free-trade standard while securing unfair advantages for themselves. Trump wisely recognized that the best way to make real progress on free trade is to make sure these countries have some skin in the game.

The Democratic Party’s version of net neutrality regulation works the same way as the G7’s “rules-based trade” policy. Democrats’ rules-based approach to net neutrality required internet service providers (ISPs) to give government-regulated access to their platforms while leaving Silicon Valley’s big tech platforms free to block and prioritize content as a means of maintaining their monopolies and pushing Democrats’ political agenda.

Just as the Canadian and European countries in the G7 have gamed our ideological commitment to free trade, big tech companies seeking the government benefits offered by Democrats’ approach to net neutrality have gamed Republicans’ commitment to free markets. Rather than starting with the principle that whatever internet regulations are ultimately adopted must apply fairly to all similarly situated internet companies, Republicans have limited their negotiating stance to insisting that there be no internet regulations. This leaves big tech (and their Democratic Party champions) with no skin in the game—to continue the analogy, no realistic possibility that they’ll be subject to the same tariffs they’re so eager to impose on ISPs.

With no skin in the game, Democrats have been emboldened to make outrageous claims, like this one from Senator Dianne Feinstein, who recently tweeted that Democrats’ version of net neutrality “means consumers get to choose what websites and applications they see online” even though their regulations allow, and even encourage, big tech companies to block websites and applications. If Democrats’ bluff is called, the status quo remains and they’ve lost nothing. But if they succeed, their big tech allies gain additional power to maintain their monopolies and influence public opinion. It’s all upside for big tech and the Democrats.

To paraphrase President Trump’s words on trade, Democrats’ unfair approach to net neutrality has taken advantage of consumers and Republican ideals for years.

Their tactics have been so successful that Democrats don’t even try to explain how their one-sided approach to internet regulation could possibly benefit consumers. In response to demands that net neutrality apply to big tech companies’ monopoly platforms, Democrats typically resort to personal attacks or make feeble excuses.

Excuse: No Legal Authority

Democrats justify their decision to exempt big tech from their net neutrality regulations by claiming the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn’t have sufficient legal authority to regulate big tech platforms. If this is the problem, why haven’t Democrats proposed legislation that would give the FCC legal authority to protect consumers from the abusive practices of big tech monopolies? Because Democrats would rather protect the profits of big tech than protect consumers.

Excuse: “Competition Is One Click Away

Another justification for exempting big tech platforms from net neutrality regulation is the claim that competition among big tech companies will prevent them from abusing consumer privacy or blocking or prioritizing content in ways that violate net neutrality principles. This claim has proven false. By now it’s a well-known fact that big tech companies routinely prevent consumers from accessing their choice of content, applications, and services on the internet. From the perspective of a consumer who wants to access YouTube on the internet, it doesn’t matter whether its an ISP or Google itself who blocks the popular video service on a particular device; the consumer loses either way.

Excuse: Big Tech Will Regulate Itself

When it comes to regulating big tech, Democrats claim self-regulation by big tech monopolies is the appropriate way to protect consumers. According to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-NY), waiting for big tech monopolies to “do more on their own” is “the antidote to government regulation.” When Comcast suggested that the internet industry could self-regulate net neutrality issues through a working group, the left said ISPs can’t be trusted and Democrats regulated. Many say the same thing about big tech monopolies, yet Democrats refuse to act.

Calling Democrats’ Bluff

Democrats’ excuses are no more convincing than the G7 complaining about free trade when Canada levies tariffs of 270 percent on milk, 245 percent on cheese and 298 percent on butter to keep U.S. dairy products out of Canadian stores. It appears the purpose of Democrats’ net neutrality excuses is to avoid the inconvenient truth that Democrats would rather protect big tech monopolies than protect consumers.

Republicans in Congress should call the Democrats’ bluff. The insight of the Trump doctrine is that negotiation is only possible if both sides have some skin in the game. If the Democrats insist on regulating net neutrality at the FCC, Republicans should insist that the FCC regulations apply to big tech monopolies. That’s how Trump would do it.