Last week we talked about how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has finally made a move to support net neutrality. Of course there is still a small group of detractors who stand to lose a great deal if broadband providers are classified under Title II of the Telecommunications Act and regulated accordingly. The opposition is loudly shouting that net neutrality will kill free enterprise and stifle innovation. Opposition representatives are also falsely representing to achieve personal aims.
Regulation Smothers Innovation
Government regulation has at some points in the past hindered the growth of free enterprise. The remaining few who still fight against broadband reclassification and regulation say that this will happen again. They claim that they oppose net neutrality not because they favor increased powers for and abuse from broadband providers, but because government meddling will repress growth. But they are not talking about how things work differently on the Internet. Innovation on the Internet and the growth of Internet based businesses will definitely benefit from the freedom to have content delivered to consumers under a banner of equity.
The detractors are not technically opposed to net neutrality, but to government regulation. They say that getting the government involved in Internet business will be a big mistake. Granted, the open Internet is not going to be possible without the public utility reclassification that will permit the regulation needed to watch over greedy providers who want to corner the market and provide really bad service in the process. But regulation to them means the power to gain more control over the Internet itself, not just service providers. They say that the reach of government surveillance as an example should be enough to make people realize that it is not a reasonable price to pay. In essence, they say that with government regulation we will be making a sacrificing that could end up undermining the open Internet in the end.
Open Internet advocates are celebrating the FCC’s accommodation of net neutrality rules. They see it as a victory for free speech and Internet equality. There was just no other way they could see to make broadband providers stop discriminating against traffic and making services pay more for different types of content, resulting in bigger fees for subscribers. FCC regulation of course means that the government will be keeping a closer eye on online content, and will only step in to regulate the treatment of legal content. This may mean the end of piracy, but the open Internet initiative isn’t about letting people download whatever they want without reprisal.
But letting the government play a part in regulating services that are misbehaving is not a bad thing in itself. If it really leads to increased surveillance and other shady activities, these will have to be dealt with. The government can and will be held responsible for any bad behavior, just as broadband providers now will be. We can’t give up the dream of an open Internet just to keep the government away. This is the opinion of those living in fear. Just look at what FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai did to activists yesterday at his press conference. The group simply wanted to protest Pai’s apparent lack of interest for the public interest. So the guards were ordered to remove them by force from the area. The peaceful protesters were tackled and dragged away for holding up a banner that said, “85% of Republican Voters Support Net Neutrality”. And even after they had left the grounds, they were threatened and harassed because they were entertaining questions from a camera crew.
Content blocking and discrimination is being fought against here, right now, and this is what we need to focus on. Any potential abuses committed by the government will have to be dealt with when they come. We can’t let net neutrality go just to avoid the possibility that the government might stick their noses in too far. But the opposition is scared and they are acting out because of this fear that they might lose their investments.
It is true that the net neutrality debate has favored consumers over providers. But this is because these providers have been pushing their limits for their own profit. Consumers need to be protected, and this also does not mean that providers will not be permitted to earn their keep. The claim that businesses will not be able to grow is absurdly exaggerated. And what of other service providers like content streaming sites whose traffic has been regularly throttled by broadband providers? Their growth is being stifled by ISPs yet the opposition does not sympathize with them. In the end, if ISPs get their way, it is consumers who will suffer. The opposition says that the government has interfered with other utilities and that this has made things difficult for consumers. But the regulation of city services and telecoms has been done to protect consumers from overeager providers. Is the opposition claiming that Internet users are going to get an even worse experience than they are enduring right now if the FCC makes broadband providers deliver their Netflix at the proper speeds?
In any case, net neutrality advocates don’t want the FCC to control the Internet like they control other public utilities. The reclassification is simply to give them the regulatory powers they need to reel in ISPs when they star overstepping their bounds where content blocks and traffic discrimination is concerned. Let’s not get all paranoid and instead focus on solid net neutrality rules that will protect consumers from greedy service providers so that online lie can be freed for innovation and growth.