Whose Freedom?

Everybody wants to be free.

Everybody wants to be free to do what he wants when he wants. But all military cliches aside, who is planning to foot the bill for my freedom?

I have spent the last half hour reading articles and Wikipedia on the so-called "network neutrality" debate that has raged off-and-on in all the respected halls of nerd-dom in America. If I understand correctly, this is a battle between Big Telecom (with quite a few Free Market cheerleaders) and Big Internet (with an assortment of Stand-Up-for-the-Little-Guy free-speech types). In case I'm not understanding this correctly, feel free to chime in below, (especially if your name is Katie and the Internet writes your paychecks and does your laundry.)

Big Internet is worried that Big Telecom is scheming to tamper with or even restrict web content that it doesn't like. Big Internet does not want to be forced to pay more money to Big Telecom for premium speed and quality of service. Big Internet, for the most part, then, wants the Internet to be "neutral," not biased in favor of those who can pay big bucks for premium access to consumers. Many consumer advocates and liberal bloggers agree. Big Telecom must not in any way restrict, interfere with, or inhibit web content.

Big Telecom, on the other hand, claims to have little interest in restricting web content for moral or political reasons, rather for economic ones. Some web content slows down the Internet for everyone and should therefore be restricted or charged accordingly. Big Telecom claims this is for the benefit of everyone in the long run, as it needs new sources of revenue in order to develop next-level technology which will theoretically result in a faster Internet. On a side note, Big Government is also interested in using the resources of Big Telecom to keep an eye on potential risks to homeland security. No wonder all the espressoholic bloggers are foaming at the mouth. (brb. my mug needs a refill)

To over-simplify a complicated and hopelessly boring subject even further, this seems to be a case of Free Speech vs. the Free Market. One side claims the freedom to shout "Fire!" across a crowded network, and the other side claims the freedom to make you pay for it.

Caught in the crossfire of this madness is the diminishing Christian Coalition of America--less visible since the glory days of Ralph Reed (before he went to work for Big Casino). They have repeatedly taken the side of Big Internet in this debate, and in so doing, have been caught holding hands with MoveOn.org. Consequently, according to an aide to the Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Free Market), they are "off the reservation." In other news, there's a rumor going around a few lesser known liberal websites that many Free Market advocates are "elitist."

So here's my cards on the table. I don't really care much who wins this debate. As much as I like the Internet (and I really do like it), I'm not sure I care if anything faster or more convenient comes along. After all, I still have my library card. I'm also not sure I care if AT&T wants to charge me extra to flirt with its "competitors" (who are its competitors precisely?)

I do care, however, that there are a lot of kids around the world who die every day of diarrhea. I'm not sure I remember the exact number. I'll just check Wikipedia.

Freedom is a funny thing. Sometimes it's not as free as it seems on TV. As C.S. Lewis once poignantly observed, human freedom will be permanently honored in only one place.--Hell.