But a recent ruling by a federal court puts the openness of the Internet at risk, endangering the playpen for innovation that has been such a boon for the American economy. As a result of the ruling, the broadband providers that most users rely on to connect to the Internet will no longer be required to treat all websites the same. They could, for example, block access to high-bandwidth sites — say, Netflix — that don’t pay them a fee. Regardless, any regulatory structure in which broadband providers get to play favorites is likely to stifle innovation. The next Facebook might never take off; conceivably, Verizon or Comcast could slow traffic to and from the site if they’d already inked an agreement with one of the earlier, rudimentary social networking services like Friendster.
The court’s decision to strike down “net neutrality” would allow a few service providers to appoint themselves gatekeepers of the Internet. Even well-established sites would be at their mercy. Inevitably, though, it’s startup companies trying to break the mold that would suffer the most.
Most of the impetus behind the push to preserve “net neutrality” stems from free speech concerns. If a cable company is allowed to discriminate among sites, critics fear, it can discriminate among points of view, too. One Canadian broadband provider did just that, blocking a site critical of the company in 2005. The possibility of corporate censorship should concern the Federal Communications Commission, the agency whose rule was struck down last week. But this isn’t a battle that free-speech advocates should have to fight alone. The business community also has to remind the commission, and Congress, how the end of net neutrality could kill what has been America’s golden goose.
Luckily, the decision by a three-judge panel at the of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit left the FCC a route to restore net neutrality. The agency can reinstate its regulations if it reclassifies broadband Internet as a “telecommunication service,” instead of an “information service.” By any common-sense definition, a broadband Internet connection is a means to communicate. It’s the websites themselves that are the information services. But regulators have been hesitant to label broadband a telecommunications service, in the face of lobbying from the telecoms. If the regulators won’t act, Congress should.
If lawmakers need encouragement, they need only remember that other countries, like Chile and Germany, are moving to preserve net neutrality and the open Internet it ensures. Should the United States allow cable companies to chaperone the Internet, the next entrepreneur with a bold idea might emerge from Stuttgart instead of Silicon Valley.