The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should not adopt the proposed concept of net neutrality. Net neutrality, as described by Tony Lee, “essentially prevent companies that own the broadband infrastructure (of the internet) from interfering with applications and programs even if certain users disproportionately hog and clog the broadband networks and bandwidth.” This means companies like Yahoo and Google, who are considered Content and Application Providers (CAPs), cannot regulate programs such as Netflix or video-chatting programs that clog the internet’s bandwidth (Crocioni, 2011). Currently the CAP’s can alter a programs’ internet streaming capabilities to ensure internet access is not slowed down as a whole. The Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton responded to the neutrality proposal, saying “the FCC’s hostile actions toward innovation, investment and job creation cannot be allowed to stand” (Perine, 2011). Traffic management, as net neutrality supports, sounds like a good idea. In reality, it is just one of many steps government will take in trying to conquer the freedom of the internet.
Over the past decade (2001-2009) the internet business has exploded from an $8 billion enterprise to a $42 billion giant, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. During these years the internet was regulatory-free. Proponents of net neutrality state that regulation would promote faster, more secure internet access for all individuals (Crocioni, 2011). Peter Suderman in his piece “Internet Cop”, however, asserts that “the internet best operates when the government leaves it alone.” Past efforts to expand and expedite the internet gave way to flocks of entrepreneurs looking to make money in the internet field. If regulation were to occur, the internet industry would lose jobs set up to streamline the internet to the government.
The issue of freedom versus regulation of the internet gives way to biases on both sides. The government would like to see regulation fall into their hands because the FCC would grow in size to be able to handle regulatory concerns. Governmental regulatory jobs would increase tenfold. The government would also have control over what is accepted and rejected on the web. Proponents of internet freedom are biased in the sense that they currently use the unregulated internet. In today’s form the internet offers access to just about any site by any individual with a computer. Complete freedom in this magnitude is revered.
The positions on the idea of net neutrality are distinctly drawn. The government proposes that regulation would streamline the internet and essentially clean it up. Proponents of a free internet hold true to the fact that while left on its own the internet has expanded greatly, offering thousands of people with ingenuous solutions to benefit. Internet regulation, net neutrality primarily, is a danger to the ideal of freedom. Internet creation and growth stemmed from people who simply wanted to make the internet better. Some aspects thrived while others died – a characteristic of our free-market economy. Net neutrality gives the government power over how the internet functions on a data-level position. If this ideal were to be supported it would undoubtedly lead to more regulation and censorship by the government, not freedom.
References
Crocioni, Pietro, “Net Neutrality in Europe: Desperately seeking a market failure”, Telecommunications policy, Vol 35., Issue 1, February 2011, pages 1-11
Lee, Tony, “FCC: ‘Regulatory Vigilante”, Human Events Online News, January 3, 2011, http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf25_26/pdf/2011/
Perine, Keith, “Top Issues for 2011: Net Neutrality”, CQ Weekly, January 10, 2011, pg. 102, http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/document.php?id=weeklyreport112-000003792323&type=toc&num=61&
Suderman, Peter, “Internet Cop”, Internet Freedom Coalition, http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=1690#more-1690
