The debate hadn’t gone away, but President Barack Obama’s call for strict net neutrality rules certainly took the issue off the back burner.
Last month, Obama asked the Federal Communications Commission to treat the Internet as a public utility, a move that would create net neutrality by prohibiting Internet service providers from blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization to websites that don’t pay up.
What I found interesting this time around is the backlash. It’s a battle of wills among the rights of businesses and consumers. But it’s also a grander debate over whether the government should regulate the Internet, similar to an electric or water service.
Some legislators certainly don’t think so. U.S. Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo., for instance, called for a hands-off approach in response.
“How carriers manage their networks and negotiate arrangements should be determined by engineers, entrepreneurs and consumers acting in the vigorous marketplace, not by the subjective judgments of unelected bureaucrats,” Long wrote in a Dec. 5 report. “If the FCC regulates the Internet as a public utility, it will diminish investment and hinder opportunity for commercial activities.”
To me, it seems the Internet fits the dictionary definition of utility in just about every sense of the word. It certainly is a useful service provided to the public. It’s also most certainly a program designed to perform routine operations. My favorite: “the capacity of a commodity or a service to satisfy some human want.”
At issue here is when the government dips its hands into private industry, a mishmash of businesses, consumers and politicians can get a little skittish. I can hear it now: The government, in my Internet? Hell no!
I’m neither pro-government nor anti-government, and I’m certainly not anti-business. I’m mostly middle-of-the road when it comes to such things.
However, I’m going to take a clear stance on the side of free and open Internet.
The Web should be protected from the greedy hands of ISPs. In the same way monopolies shouldn’t exist, the big boys should not be allowed to dictate how we consume the Internet – arguably the most important resource we have. Don’t agree? Try to do business or even live your personal life for one day without the Internet.
Who stands to benefit from a lack of net neutrality rules? Mostly just ISPs.
I would point you to what other businesses have to say on the matter. A letter penned in May asking the FCC to “take the necessary steps to ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for speech and commerce so that America continues to lead the world in technology markets” was signed by most of the major tech firms, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Yahoo, Microsoft, eBay and Netflix. The list goes something like 150 businesses deep.
Feelings aside for the president or his political policies, he’s spot on here.
“We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Obama said last month. “The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy – and our society – has ever known.
“The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible and free Internet.”
It’s time to put political affiliations aside and realize what we are losing without net neutrality in place.
We are losing the level ground that has made it possible even for small businesses and projects to make it big online. We are losing a service of equality. That notion is reminiscent of one of the greatest ideals of this country, that all should be treated equally.
There’s a lot at stake here. Let’s get on the right side.
Springfield Business Journal Web Editor Geoff Pickle can be reached at gpickle@sbj.net.
