Remember when independent films had as much push as Hollywood blockbusters? Remember when we could broadcast our own radio and television programming if we wanted to? Neither do I. However, we do have the Internet, which gives us some of this power. The question is: for how long?
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal network neutrality laws passed by the Federal Communications Commission in December. The rhetoric some Republican lawmakers have used to justify fighting the regulations is obnoxiously misleading. Representatives such as Oregon’s own Greg Walden (R-Hood River) use phrases like “government takeover.” According to an article in The Huffington Post last Friday, these lawmakers asserted that net neutrality rules would “stifle investment in broadband systems.”
In reality, net neutrality means service providers can’t discriminate or favor content and services on the web. This gives consumers the same ease in access to major corporations’ sites as local web content and the most obscure of blogs.
Without net neutrality, service providers would become the gatekeepers for the web. Corporations like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon Wireless would be allowed to block competing services or sites that might threaten their bottom line. They would also be able to charge for speed of service, which benefits the wealthiest content providers.
For example, if Verizon wanted to create a mapping service and charge for it, then it would be allowed to block competitors like Google Maps. Similarly, corporate watchdog groups could have access to their sites — slowed down — if they don’t have as much money as the institutions they’re keeping an eye on.
Besides being a serious impediment to free speech, the assault on net neutrality amounts to an economic coup.
Giving service providers the discretion to slow down and block content stifles innovation. Imagine a start-up news organization trying to compete with a News Corporation organ like The Wall Street Journal. Readers would be discouraged from visiting the start-up because of the slower service and would be steered toward News Corp., whose owner Rupert Murdoch has been very forward about charging for all his company’s services despite its questionable quality.
When Republican lawmakers make claims about stifling investment in broadband, they are really referring to investment in the existing service providers and the wealthiest content producers. More competition could inspire investment in aspiring web entrepreneurs, but these young start-ups don’t have nearly as much lobbying power in Washington as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.
The debate in Washington has been mostly partisan, but service providers and business interests have co-opted unlikely grassroots groups to shape the image of the issue. According to a December article on The Root, civil rights organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Urban League and the League of United Latin American Citizens have signed letters and made statements in favor of the service providers trying to defeat net neutrality.
These groups, who have a tradition of fighting for the people, are giving a bipartisan impression to measures that only benefit a privileged few.
One explanation for this is that AT&T and Verizon have done a lot in hiring minority workers and funding community institutions throughout the years. This good standing in the community has allowed them to call on favors from credible public figures even if a lack of net neutrality doesn’t benefit the people in the community. In other words, it is subordinate rule and deception.
Consumers, especially in low-income communities, do not benefit from higher-priced services and a lack of competition.
The basic principles of economics tell us that more competition equals lower prices. If service providers are allowed to be the gatekeepers for the Internet, then they can eliminate competition and charge as much as they want for their services and those of the highest bidders. It is counterintuitive to both consumers, who have less money to spend on services than in years past, and web-based businesses, whose increased prices will alienate their customers.
Never mind that any one of these consumers could be the next successful web entrepreneur. With so many jobs going overseas, the Internet provides a relatively fertile ground for innovation and a new frontier for services.
This is especially important for communities with high unemployment, because the answer to U.S. financial woes lies in the empowerment of its middle and working class.
If service providers are allowed to slow down or block the content of an aspiring business sector, then it is an obstacle to the development of these communities and the economy overall.
The Internet is one of the last bastions where the people hold the power. We can provide and access content and services on a level playing field with the wealthiest businesses in the world. An open Internet has spawned the YouTubes, Facebooks, Twitters and Netflixes of the world.
Don’t let tired “big government” talk or endorsements from well-to-do public figures fool you. Unless you are an executive at AT&T, Comcast, Verizon — or one of these service providers’ wealthy friends — an open Internet benefits you.
Your money and freedom of speech are at stake. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, but let’s not learn that lesson the hard way.
[email protected]