Daniel Tilson
As if Internet service isn’t expensive enough, get ready for a “two-tiered” pay-to-play version. The Federal Communications Commission is moving forward with a controversial plan that would let Internet service providers (ISP) charge companies extra to stream their content at faster speeds.
Companies like Netflix, Amazon and Google would be charged new fees to deliver movies, music and other content with the speed and smoothness we’ve come to expect and rely on (even though American broadband service still lags behind much of the industrialized world). And wink-wink, nod-nod, gee whiz, you think if forced to pay that way, they might pass along those costs to us consumers? Hmm.
But that’s not the worst of it.
The worst of it is that countless other smaller companies, organizations of all kinds and plain old individuals that provide so much informational, educational and entertainment content could be left stuck in low gear, compared to the big boys willing to pay for high-speed streaming.
Nobody knows exactly how bad the differential could get, but longtime advocates of “net neutrality” and defenders of the public interest agree; it’s a bad idea to risk what could easily become communication segregation.
It tells you something that the inventor of the Internet (no, not Al Gore), a brilliant guy named Tim Berners-Lee, is a leading advocate of net neutrality regulation that classifies the Internet as a public utility rather than an “information service.” The latter designation was made in 2002, part of wanton deregulation by the Bush-Cheney administration. The sales pitch was that it would encourage free-market competition.
I don’t know about you, but that “competition” hasn’t given me many options or any affordability when it comes to ISPs.
In fact, it’s AT&T and Verizon that have pushed us to this brink of what could be a dark new age of Internet inequality.
Just think about the extent to which equal, open access to the worldwide web has made possible everything from democratic liberation movements toppling repressive regimes, to learning and information-sharing capacities for our kids that are virtually limitless. Then think about being forced into the back seat, on a slow-moving ride to … who knows?
The idea that regulating net neutrality is a bad thing comes straight from the anti-regulation playbook used by business-first boosters looking to mislead and manipulate the general public. It didn’t start with Bush-Cheney, and it sure didn’t end there.
Dominic Calabro, president and CEO of Florida TaxWatch, wrote a recent Context Florida column underlining that point. Using language that could have come from AT&T and Verizon press releases, he claimed net neutrality “discourages private company investment and slows innovation.” Really? How is it then that innovative companies like Google say the exact opposite, that it’s the proposed new rules that will stifle investment and innovation?
Calabro ironically used the phrase “onerous new regulations” to argue against designation of the Internet as a public utility. That’s not even on the table for now. As public-interest organization Consumers Union makes clear, it’s the current, proposed FCC regulations that will be onerous … for the American people, that is, not the corporations that fought for them.
Swinging for the rhetorical fences, Calabro went so far as to say net neutrality regulation would amount to “a government takeover of the Internet.”
Well, just like Americans deserve universal access to affordable health care, a principle slandered the same way, we too deserve universal, equal, unfettered access to the Internet.
If you agree, consider submitting an online comment letting the FCC know where you stand. Their onerous government takeover of net neutrality won’t be finalized until September 10.
Daniel Tilson has a Boca Raton-based communications firm called Full Cup Media, specializing in online video and written content for non-profits, political candidates and organizations, and small businesses. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
