Diary of a Mad Editor

Much ado has been made about net neutrality — by those who support it and those who don’t. Those who don’t support neutrality are mostly the Telecom industry and those who support the Telkom industry such as certain member of congress who’ve been in the pockets of the Telecom industry for years. Those who do support neutrality (or at least are indifferent to it) are comprised of everyone else.

The reason it’s become such a hot button issue is because the FCC is now pushing for new regulations to enforce neutrality rules onto the Telecom industry. To be fair, the previous administration was philosophically in favor of net neutrality as well, but did little to support it in fact. Cynics would argue that the current administration’s push is a reflection of the fact that tech industry giants like Google want the new rules and Google was one of Obama’s major corporate contributors and this is probably quid pro quo. However, given that net neutrality, or the lack thereof, affects everyone who uses the Internet, or creates content or gadgets and software for downloading a viewing digital content, we should be engaged in the issue.

Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter if you are a blogger, Face book, Google, an eBook publisher, Web2Print, or a company selling online backup services — you need to worry about an unregulated Internet where an Internet provider may well be using its power to control the quality and access to certain websites like YouTube or other well-trafficked sites and services. If you are a consumer, you sure have the right to the level of quality, speed and access you are paying for.

Now, is there currently a major problem with net neutrality? See, that’s one of the arguments anti-neutrality forces are using. It’s not a problem. Cases in which providers overreached (Comcast, ahem), are for the free market and the courts to sort out, according to them, and not Congress. Well, okay, let’s say for the sake of argument that it isn’t currently a problem, that Comcast’s unilateral decision to block certain P2P file access is an isolated incident and that most Internet providers are responsible citizens. With more and more technology providing newer, better and faster ways of accessing and creating content coming into use, it’s a sure bet that it will become a big problem in the future, if someone doesn’t lay down the law now.

One of the problems I’ve always had with the FCC is that under past administrations they’ve spent too much time playing at being the nation’s censors, stepping on free speech and too little time enforcing the rules they are supposed to enforce, leaving the so-called free market and the pro-business leaning Supreme Court to write a blank check for the Telecom industry. The web was intended to be the progenitor of creativity and progressive thought. It belongs to people who use the Internet. It does not belong to the Telecom companies. They merely provide access to the Internet — they don’t really own it. So the onus is on the regulators to protect the people who really create the content and communities that really make-up the Internet.

I’ll use myself as an example. I figure, I spend about 35% of my week online. That’s many hours of multitasking, writing blogs, reading submissions, accessing Facebook and YouTube and Netflix. Now prior to 2009, the only broadband Internet access in my neck of the woods was offered by Comcast. I couldn’t afford Comcast, so until very recently, I was stuck with dial-up. That meant until about a month ago, I didn’t have a functional Internet. I couldn’t do much online and what I did do, took forever. This forced me to take my laptop around town looking for whatever hotspot I could find. I was at the mercy of the Telecom industry. Now, while this doesn’t specifically have anything to do with net neutrality, my case demonstrates how a Telecom company with a virtual monopoly over a region, that for years was legally protected from any real competition at all, can affect not just the consumers who use their service, but those who cannot afford it. If our lawmakers give the Telecoms unlimited power to prioritize access to legal sites and services, they are not acting in the best interests of Internet users or in the best interests of the Internet itself. So, yeah … I have to say I’m in favor of net neutrality.

That does not mean that the Telecoms can’t charge different fees for different levels of service provided those fees and levels of service are mutually agreed upon by both parties. What it does mean is that the Internet providers can’t charge for a level of service they are not providing and that they can’t ban fair access to paying customers or discriminate against legal sites and prioritize service for whatever made-up reason. That they should be forced to compete and act fairly. That we cannot trust them to do it for themselves.