By Tyler J. Dikun
No tolls on the highway? Where are we, Connecticut?
No, I am not talking about a tangible highway, but something far more vast and complex. As of right now, the information super-highway is not as free and limitless as one might expect Rather, ISPs (internet service providers) like Verizon and Comcast capitalize on the enormous revenue they generate by controlling the quality of their service to ensure that they keep churning out multi-billion dollar profits.
By creating fast and slow lanes on the superhighway, ISPs can charge for high speed internet. But what’s the harm in these companies, and many more like them, in putting the free market system of the United States to good use? Well, according to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), enough harm that broadband services have to be regulated and reclassified.
Proposed by President Obama and endorsed by Chairman Tom Wheeler of the FCC, reclassifying broadband service as a telecommunications service would mean that the same service would have to apply to all users. Just as someone in rural Texas has to be allotted the same quality of phone service as a Fortune 500 company, cable companies would have to do the same. Of course, it is much more expensive to construct phone lines in such a rural area as the net profit becomes exponentially smaller than in a dense urban area, but non-discriminate regulations ensure a national phone system that is strong in its infrastructure. ISP companies would also be prohibited from cutting deals with content providers like Netflix who pay a designated fee to cable companies in order for faster service.
As with anything in life, when profit has the potential to be scaled back, there will always be a push back by those who have enjoyed mammoth success. The main argument expressed by cable and phone companies is that being classified as a telecommunications service brings forth new and stricter regulations. Thus they believe the FCC is acting in a rather hostile manner toward these businesses. But why is net neutrality so vital as a policing force on the internet? Just ask those companies who prospered the most from the Communications Act of 1934, amended by the Telecom Act of 1996, the beginning of the net neutrality age.
One-time startups like eBay, Google and YouTube were able to foster their creativity through these non-discriminatory acts. They all had equal opportunities to be heard and publicize their company as did the largest internet moguls at the time.
Without the creative expression that net neutrality grants, one could argue that our own internet infrastructure would appear very weak and limited. Without net neutrality legislation, internet service providers could decide to charge an inordinate price for email access or block certain websites to the average user as another has paid more for that access. After all, few would reject the fee to use email or YouTube; these services are necessary for a modern society.
Internet service providers should be legislated against. One could not just assume that these captains of industry would simply abide by a code of honor and not sabotage network performance in the name of profit. Do arms dealers refuse to sell weapons in times of war because they are against the atrocities that will certainly follow? Maybe I am comparing apples to oranges, but private wants drive profit in a free market system.
Ultimately, a decision on whether or not to reclassify broadband service as a telecommunications service will not be made until Feb. 26. However, the debate has been ongoing for years. With new net neutrality legislation that incorporates cable and phone companies, the internet can reach toward a brighter future without the fear of limitation. Take away the tolls on a highway and traffic is greatly diminished. Take away Verizon and Comcast’s ability to affect speed quality, and the internet superhighway will become more free-flowing than it already is.
