As of press time Thursday the FCC had not taken final definitive action on net neutrality, the notion that everyone in the country should have equal access to the Internet.
The agency chairman Ajit Pai has said current regulations prevent the Internet from meeting its market potential by inhibiting growth and innovation.
I’ve heard that argument before, typically from the banking, housing and Wall Street industries who gripe that all the rules and regulations they are required to follow keep them from creating a vibrant economy that benefits everyone. In reality the gains from deregulation offer short-term or minimal benefit to average Americans while large corporations and their shareholders reap the windfall of an unchecked market.
“Working with my colleagues, I look forward to returning to the light-touch, market-based framework that unleashed the digital revolution and benefited consumers here and around the world,” Pai told Politico‚ an Internet-based news organization, in November.
Opponents of deregulation have insisted that the move will clear the way for Internet service providers to develop a smorgasbord of pricing options that coincide with content.
For example, after deregulation, Internet service provider Verizon could set up a pricing scheme in which consumers who want to watch Youtube would have to pay extra if they wanted to watch videos at a regular rate of speed vs. those who wanted to pay less and watch videos at slower, interrupted speeds. But the pricing plans could also be applied to a variety of information sources.
They could charge for different rates of delivery of other content as well, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, the L.A. Times, Amazon, Netflix, virtually any piece of information or service you receive via the Internet.
While it might seem a sound practice for providers, the reality is that in today’s climate there are a handful of Internet service providers and future consolidation would open the door to monopolies and escalating charges.
The Internet, in its current form and for better or worse, is a great equalizer. The day laborer has just as much access to Breitbart.com as the chairman of the largest bank in the country does. But through deregulation that 9 to 5 grunt might have to pay considerably more for access to the same information than his white collar counterpart does based on the speed in which he wants information.
In 2011 when the Southwest suffered one of the biggest blackouts in history, I drove through various parts of the city. Stoplights were not working, electricity wasn’t flowing and cars came to a standstill on the freeway and surface streets as people struggled to figure out was happening. It was Twitter (and text messages) that kept me in the loop. Had Internet service providers been allowed to charge based on what the market demanded I’d hate to think how much I and every other average Joe would have been charged for staying out of the dark.
Well said. Deregulation sounds great to simpletons who think that no regulation is best. What they don’t realize is that corporations get greedy and consumers get shafted. Back in the late 1990’s, our state thought that deregulating the electric system would be great and what happened was the worst energy crisis we have ever had. Ask the person who had $800 electric bills if that was a good move. And while it wasn’t the only cause, the care-free regulations of the banking industry created the real estate boom and bust that worsened the Great Recession.