Opinion: To Save the Internet, Regulate It

The basic idea is that the Internet is no longer a plaything or special portal for the privileged, but a communication and commerce network essential to modern life.

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • linkText
  • Email
"In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices."

There is so much that is so wrong in just that one paragraph from the commentary by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that ran in Monday's Tribune that you'd almost think Cruz hadn't read President Barack Obama's Nov. 10 statement on net neutrality that returned this ever-simmering issue to the front burner.

In that statement, Obama proposed a set of "bright-line rules" to protect the Internet from the predatory, monopolistic service providers who stand to wreak just the sort of havoc Cruz fears from the government. These rules include:

No blocking. Internet service providers -- your Comcasts, Verizons and AT&Ts -- shouldn't be permitted to block their customers from accessing online any content that's legal.

No throttling. The providers shouldn't be permitted "to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others" based on its preferences or business interests.

No gatekeeping. To preserve "the level playing field essential to the Internet's growth," Internet service providers should not be allowed to create special "fast lane" access for content providers who pay an extra fee.

The basic idea is that the Internet is no longer a plaything or special portal for the privileged, but a communication and commerce network so essential to modern life that it's now more analogous to electricity, water and telephone service than to subscription television or overnight package delivery services. And that this is particularly true since in many parts of the country customers have few if any choices when it comes to home access to the Web.

So in recognition of that, Obama and backers of net neutrality contend, the law should treat Internet service providers more like public utilities than private entrepreneurs -- making sure they don't throw up prohibitive tolls and erect unreasonable roadblocks on what we used to call "the information superhighway."

Would net neutrality put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, as Cruz contends?

Explicitly not. Those who've actually read the president's directive can see that he asks the Federal Communications Commission specifically not to impose "rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services."

Would it put the government in charge of the types of products and services that can be delivered online, as Cruz also contends?

Not a chance. Do regulations on electric utilities put the government in charge of what kind of toaster you can buy or what juices you make in your blender?

Would net neutrality lead to fewer consumer choices, fewer business opportunities and higher prices, as Cruz also contends?

It's hard to see how. To date, the Internet has been basically open, operating with de facto net neutrality, and its wonders and its growth have only multiplied. Individuals with clever ideas, and in some cases no seed money, have become wildly successful with little obstruction. Competition has flourished.

With isolated exceptions, broadband companies have not blocked or throttled emerging content providers or shunted less favored competitors into digital slow lanes.

Indeed the best argument against the imposition of federal regulations on the provision of Internet services isn't Cruz's false and reflexive hyperventilating against government intervention, it's the gentle admonition, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But the status quo we value is plainly fragile. The growth of online video and commerce sites, along with mergers among service providers, is creating plenty of incentives and opportunities for side deals. Call them "innovations" if you must, but they're likely to tilt the once-level Internet playing field away from the plucky start-ups and the "the mom-and-pop online retailers -- many of whom are women, minorities or young people struggling to achieve the American dream," over whom Cruz so unctuously purrs in his commentary.

Netflix is already paying three major U.S. Internet service providers special fees for special treatment of its streaming video content. The Los Angeles Times reports that Google, Amazon and Yahoo also pay for privileged access to customers.

This raises the barriers for entry for any entrepreneurs hoping to topple the e-commerce giants and generates extra costs that are paid by ... guess who?

If the free, open Internet ain't broke yet, let's take steps to protect it from those who would break it.

©2014 Chicago Tribune


  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • linkText
  • Email