Why local, state net neutrality laws are a bad idea

When the Federal Communications Commission repealed President Obama’s net neutrality rules last year, it launched a movement.

Around the country, there is a rising tide calling for permanent new rules to keep the internet open and free. No company should be permitted to interfere with our internet experience by blocking or prioritizing traffic or discriminating against anyone’s ability to participate online. In a digital world, net neutrality is a civil rights imperative — the only way to be sure that all citizens have a full and equal chance to be heard in the new public square.

Like any effective movement for change, if we don’t get the strategy right we won’t end up where we need to go.

That means fighting for strong, permanent net neutrality that will protect everyone online — not temporary half measures or, even worse, inconsistent or incomplete rules that cover some people or states but not others.

Local and state-based efforts to pass narrow net neutrality for one city or state is a mistake. While efforts to channel grassroots energy for net neutrality into local rules such as California’s current legislative push or the call by mayors in San Francisco, San Jose and other cities to move on the issue are well-intentioned, in the end they cannot provide the lasting, enforceable protection for digital participation and equality we need.

Mostly, it’s a practical problem. There is only one internet. It flows in and out of jurisdic- tions and crosses borders and even oceans as a unified consistent whole. It cannot operate if it is carved into different localities or required to follow conflicting rules in different places. Net neutrality is no good if it protects you at home but not when you come to Washington to march.

This kind of patchwork will leave consumers holding the bag, as services they depend on in one state, such as unlimited streaming plans for their favorite shows or even parental controls, are restricted once they cross state lines. Companies give up on potential products or new capabilities because of the risk some locality will veto them.

The need for national protection for the internet is also a moral imperative. Local control sounds good, but it has a long and ugly history of being used to cover up the worst kinds of discrimination and backward thinking. Whether it’s Southern cities shutting down swimming pools rather than integrate them or Northern ones passing discriminatory voter ID laws, local control over political and civic participation has long been used to empower the worst forces in our society.

The only way to truly protect net neutrality for all is to pass a strong, enforceable federal law that will ensure equal participation for everyone, everywhere.

Congress has the power to pass such a law, but some leaders instead are pursuing the flawed Congressional Review Act resolution, a move that would reinstate the 2015 Obama version of net neutrality but which is unlikely to pass Congress and almost certainly can’t get a presidential signature.

From the Charlottesville, Virginia, terrorists who used a Facebook event to organize their rally to the tsunami of abuse that assails black women when they speak up online, the digital landscape is deeply tilted against participation by women and people of color and rules that will do little to keep the internet open and free.

Congress has the ability to pass a real, permanent, comprehensive net neutrality law. Both Republican and Democratic voters care deeply about the internet — with more than 76 percent of Americans demanding action.

Legislating is hard, but this issue is too important to settle for anything less.