Regulation is Desperately Needed to Protect the Web

26

Author: Ben Dalgetty

 

Last week, in an underreported ruling, Washington D.C. federal appeals court crippled the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its efforts to enforce net neutrality. Unfortunately, for all parties involved, the court’s ruling that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the Internet was technically correct. As a result, the already convoluted web of regulations surrounding governing telecommunications and information access just got more confusing. Because of the ruling, there is now no clear governmental regulator over the Internet, and the very openness and democratic nature which allowed it to thrive are in danger.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by high-bandwidth users, particularly those who use file-sharing programs like Bittorrent to download and upload disproportionately large files. They stated that Comcast Cable Corporation was illegally disconnecting and/or slowing down their Internet connection.

The FCC ruled in 2008 that Comcast’s actions were illegal and needed to be stopped, a ruling intended to set precedent for all telecoms. The recent appeals case rose out of the question of whether or not the FCC has the right to regulate the Internet. The Economist recently described American regulations over information and telecommunication services as “a mystery house [of regulation], full of empty rooms and dead-end stairwells,” so it is not surprising that Congress failed to give the FCC the authority it needed.

If there is one lesson that the U.S. desperately needs to take away from the financial meltdown, it is that private industry needs regulation. This lack of regulation is problematic for Comcast and other Internet service providers because it allows for what The Economist article describes as a “market failure.” The article concludes that “the most efficient way to allocate bandwidth among customers is to charge heavy users higher prices.” Because Internet Service Providers (ISPs) often operate as local monopolies, they develop inefficient practices due to lack of competition. Effective government regulation isn’t an anathema to competition, it is essential for it.

This failure of regulation does not pose the greatest danger to corporations, but to the millions of users that have made the Internet the vibrant, open marketplace for the exchange of ideas that it is today. Since its inception, the Internet has flourished because ISPs have historically acted as neutral gatekeepers, simply allowing users to log on and then download or upload information at the greatest speed possible given their connection. If ISPs begin discriminating between different types of information and throttling bandwidth, it is a slippery slope to an uncertain future. In its coverage of the decision, Wired magazine noted that “[providers could] transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com . . . charge you a fee every time you upgrade your computer, or even block you from using certain models.”

The creativity and innovation that have proliferated online are not the results of coincidence, they are a direct result of how the Internet has been run to date, i.e. as an open market for ideas and business to make billions or go bust based on one’s own merits.

If, however, the net becomes non-neutral as nearly every service provider advocates, it will spell the death of the garage start-up companies like Google, Amazon and eBay, companies that pioneered the modern Internet. For example, if a new social networking site starts up, but Comcast has a partnership with Facebook, then all of the traffic to the new site could be redirected entirely or slowed down to a crawl.

Importantly, the regulation that the FCC attempted was not about controlling what is viewed, but rather how it is transmitted. This was not the government suddenly trying to police the content of the Web.

Net neutrality is not a radical proposal. It is the way things are today, and it is the way telecommunications have been governed since their inception. It is the role of ISPs to provide unfettered access to the Internet in all its splendor and squalor. The only way to ensure this basic freedom is through government regulation.

Following Congress’ decision, a Comcast spokeswoman said, “Comcast remains committed to the FCC’s existing open Internet principles,” as reported in Wired. But where is the guarantee of this openness? Theoretically, if a subscriber was unhappy with the services they purchased, they could switch to another carrier. However, the overwhelming majority of consumers have access to, at most, two options for broadband Internet access.

After Congress’ decision, the FCC said, “The court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end,” and this at least is welcome news. The FCC now has the option to change the classification of ISPs so they can be governed in the same manner as telecoms. Congress could pass a law like the Internet Freedom Preservation Act recently proposed in the House of Representatives and explicitly give the FCC authority over the net. Or, as The Economist called for, we could burn down the maze of regulation and start anew.

What is not an option is doing nothing. The financial meltdown’s biggest cause was the naive belief that private industry can regulate itself. We must not make that mistake again.

 

 

Ben Dalgetty is a senior politics major. He can be reached at bdalgetty@oxy.edu.

This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.

Loading

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here