Free markets and traditional values are the twin pillars of conservative thought. Ronald Reagan embodied both of these beliefs, and was a master at promoting both of these ideas. However, Reagan fully understood that a reflexive anti-regulatory, pro-market ideology does not always promote the core values of decency and family that are at the foundation of the conservative movement. He believed these ideas must exist in concert, not one at the expense of the other.

Corporate America has one priority: to maximize profits for their shareholders and executives. This is a noble and worthy goal, and has served our country and society well in terms of allocating resources and goods in a productive and rational way. A rational allocation of resources in a market economy is desirable in many ways, and markets unleashed from regulatory burden is usually a given.

However, when it comes to the media industry, it is important to remember that free markets can come at the expense of conservative values. The media conglomerates that control much of the entertainment and news landscape in our country are either agnostic, at best, or hostile, at worse, to the traditional family values that have brought so many of us into the conservative movement. The big three networks, the movie studios, and two of the three major national newspapers are all aligned politically and ideologically with forces outside of the mainstream family values that a majority of Americans share, particularly in the areas of sex and violence.

These media conglomerates continue to grow and exert greater and greater influence on the mass culture most Americans consume. They promote entertainment that rejects traditional values and embraces a coarse, crude ethic that is designed to enhance the bottom line, whether or not it raises the level of discourse in our society.

And corporate media is notoriously unfriendly to diversity of opinion, particularly on the right side of the political spectrum. Without the development of the Internet, right of center thought would have been pushed to the outer margins of the debate in the major media outlets, and our ability to change our country consistent with our beliefs would suffer.

This is what the net neutrality debate is really about, at its core: the ability of diverse voices and alternative views to continue to be heard, whether or not it is profitable for Viacom or Disney to air these views. It’s about the ability of conservative activists and candidates to communicate directly to our members and supporters without paying an additional toll to Verizon or AT&T.

These conglomerates, if they have their way, would be able to exercise their financial power to crowd out family-oriented, religious, and conservative entertainment and information that has flourished on the Internet as a result of its toll-free nature. If the Internet becomes a toll road, the voices with the deepest pockets will win.

That is the reason why the online pornography industry – a politically unpopular group – has been silent on the net neutrality debate. Commercial pornographers know that a pay-for-play Internet will be a boon for their industry. In this zero sum game, the pornographers gain will come at the expense of family-friendly voices on the Web.

Small, Christian online radio stations will lose the ability to provide their services as tolls become prohibitively expensive, and for these Mom and Pop operations, any added costs could close them down. Churches could lose the ability to webcast services to their congregations and beyond. And conservative grassroots organizations and candidates, who would have to pay increasing fees to the network operators like Verizon and AT&T, rather than using their resources for programs and mobilization.

Net neutrality is certainly not a partisan issue. Conservatives depend on diverse and underfunded foot soldiers to spread the word and build our grassroots force. Allowing big media to control our direct access to our activists would be a major blow against our movement, and would tilt the field in favor of the Hollywood-Manhattan media axis that is hostile to our values and our beliefs. It is critical for Republicans to understand the impact of this issue, and see beyond a narrow anti-regulatory focus. The stakes here are large, and the damage will be irreversible.

Jim Backlin is VP for Legislative Affairs at the Christian Coalition of America.

*This essay is a part of the TechRepublican Policy Series. Please click here to read the conservative argument AGAINST Net Neutrality

Proponents of regulating the Internet under a network neutrality regime are regrouping for another major push for federal action, with all of the Democratic presidential contenders lining up on their side. They have the advantage of an excellent marketing message—they want to save the Internet. But just under the surface of that feel-good slogan is an aggressively pro-regulatory agenda that could deter needed infrastructure investment and ultimately end in government management and ownership of the Internet. And that spells disaster not just for economic growth and innovation on the Internet, but also potentially for freedom of expression.

On November 19, 2002 a number of Internet content companies wrote a letter to the Federal Communication Commission warning that telephone and cable companies would block users from accessing their sites, destroying the Internet, without a regime of mandated network neutrality, meaning that all the data passing through a company’s network has to be treated the same way. In the nearly five years since there have been no noteworthy instances of such blocking, but the heated rhetoric about the end of the Internet continues to intensify.

Ironically, the calls for government regulation to save the Internet appear to be deterring infrastructure investments that the Internet needs to continue functioning well. That’s because network neutrality requirements, depending on how strictly the concept is implemented, could prevent infrastructure companies from having any control over the data traveling across their networks. That means allowing teenagers using massive amounts of peer-to-peer bandwidth for trading stolen video games crowding out customers who need high-quality bandwidth for video conferencing, telemedicine, or other next-generation services.

Some infrastructure companies would like to offer premium tiers with quality of service guarantees on their networks, so they can have a multiplicity of revenue sources to justify their infrastructure investments. The possibility of strict network neutrality requirements makes some of those investments, sorely needed as Internet traffic continues to skyrocket, less viable.

Robert Kahn and David Farber, the technologists known respectively as the father and grandfather of the Internet, have both been highly critical of network neutrality mandates. Kahn has pointed out that to incentivize innovation network operators must be allowed to develop new technologies within their own networks first, something that network neutrality mandates could prevent. Farber has urged Congress not to enact network neutrality mandates that would prevent significant improvements to the Internet.

Supporters of network neutrality legislation are more focused on competition at the content and application layers, which is an important consideration. But given the lack of any actual incidents of anti-competitive behavior at those layers, we should not lose sight of the importance of protecting and encouraging investment in the physical layer, the actual billion dollar networks that must continue to be built and upgraded. Some network neutrality proponents openly admit that the rules would lead to underinvestment of infrastructure, and call for government subsidization or outright ownership. If the mandates are onerous enough, that would be their inevitable implication.

A government-run, centrally-planned network would shut down the innovation engine that the Internet has become. It would be a step backward 20 years, ignoring the verdict of the 20th century that central planning doesn’t work. In the absence of any demonstrated mischief by network operators, it would be a serious policy error to embark on a regulatory course that could lead to such an outcome.

Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity.

*This essay is a part of the TechRepublican Policy Series. Please click here to read the conservative argument FOR Net Neutrality

In August, I wrote about a need to start a discussion on the Right about technology-related issues. It's my thought that the lack of discussion on the Right wasn't because conservatives didn't care about these issues, but rather, a lack of information and an appropriate forum to discuss them.

Today I'm pleased to announce the TechRepublican Policy Series, a semi-regular forum for conservatives to discuss technology-related issues from their perspectives.

To kick-off the series we're going to be taking a close look at the issue of Net Neutrality. On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, we'll hear from two conservatives arguing either FOR or AGAINST the issue respectively.

The Ground Rules

The essays will run equally for one day and will remain "sticky" at the top of this space for the duration of that period of time. (Don't worry, you'll still find great TechRepublican content updated throughout the day, but you'll have to scroll down to find the latest entries.)

After the series runs, we're going to provide a 250-word rebuttal to each side which will run collectively on Tuesday of the following week. If the “For” argument posts first, their follow-up post will be posted below the “Against” argument.

Upon completion of the series, you'll be able to find the posts for future reference on the right-hand side of this blog.

Now the Fun Part.

This week's issue is Net Neutrality, but I'm currently looking for suggestions for our next series. Please leave your ideas in the comments of this post or email me at David.All AT TechRepublican.com. And if you’re interested in writing the essay, please let me know that too.

Thanks for your participation, and I look forward to hearing your feedback on how we can collectively improve or expand this forum to better inform TechRepublicans about these important issues.