Internet too precious a resource to lose to corporations

By Mark Natale
Collegian Staff
January 31, 2007

Throughout the history of our fine country, pro-government economic policies have played second fiddle to the capitalistic dream. Regulation becomes a victim of the American economic way, and corporations reign over a completely free market. But any active citizen must occasionally ask the question of when is deregulation wrong, when is the “American Way” counter-productive and when does our government need to intervene?

Net neutrality raises those questions.

Since its inception, the Internet has been a free escape for those suffering from the negative effects of big media. The options are endless, the variety is unprecedented and the result is ideal. Users can go to any page, at any time, from any provider, while enjoying the same service. Small bloggers play on the same field as CNN, personal Web sites can grapple with conglomerates at last and a more equal footing is seen. The Internet has been the American dream encapsulated on servers and measured in bandwidth, a true haven for Davids in a world of Goliaths.

Lately, there has been a movement to disrupt the freedom of the Internet. It comes in the form of a telecommunications bill proposed by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). The bill did not include any provisions for net neutrality, giving telecommunication companies the power to control the bandwidth of the Internet. This would give companies the power to do such things as play favorites to different Web sites by deciding which will work best on their system and charge more for increased services.

The argument for net neutrality is that by giving telecommunication conglomerates a kickback for their infrastructure, it will help facilitate development of new technologies for the Internet. But simple logic leads one to discover that such an argument is superficial and baseless at best. Some American politicians are supportive of this neutrality ending legislation for the aforementioned reasons, as well as other incorrect claims. Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lauded for his “bipartisanship,” has claimed that the telecommunication corporations deserve a kickback.

Here’s the problem, though. The cause for ending net neutrality is a complete fraud. Deregulation of this media entity would in no way help the people. The precedent has been set through legislation dealing with radio, television and newspapers. All of those outlets, once seen as beacons for democracy, have become corporate playgrounds, with men like Rupert Murdoch owning far too many outlets, and conglomerates like Clear Channel owning over 1,100 radio stations.

Localization is a natural fatality, and instead of several individual voices of democracy, citizens have to deal with the packaged information of the mass media. Deregulation of the Internet would lead to similar results. Corporations would control bandwidth, giving Web sites with ties to the service provider more bandwidth and faster results. Hypothetically, the end of net neutrality could mark an age where users with Verizon have Yahoo! load up faster then Google, and users with Comcast have the reverse.

Ending neutrality could also lead to users having to pay more for access to “the whole” Internet, with certain popular sites blocked otherwise. The level playing field will be toppled, and all the Davids of cyberspace would suffer.

Fortunately, the movement to end net neutrality is losing steam. Stevens’ telecommunications bill died with the Republican majority and the end of the 109th Congress, and the newly elected members of Congress are (for the most part) supportive of net neutrality. But, the issue at hand is still pertinent. Corporations will be fighting hard to control the Internet the way they control television, radio and newspapers. Public opinion and communication with the legislators is the only way to fight back at the corporations and let them know that we’re not ready to hand over the Internet.

natalem1@lasalle.edu