PERHAPS no force in recent history has been as revolutionary as the Internet. From "Snakes on a Plane" to Chuck Norris, we can thank the Internet for many of the redeeming aspects of our culture. More importantly, the Internet has made it possible for small organizations with great ideas to bring their products or services to the greatest number of people possible. It has gone a long way towards creating the mythical "level playing field." Telecommunications companies now want to change that, and it is now up to the Senate to ensure that the Internet remains a fertile ground for innovation.
Telecommunications companies that provide Internet access have always maintained that they have the right to restrict some uses of their services. For example, they claim they should have the right to charge websites that contain videos more due to their higher demand for bandwidth. However, there have also been accusations of abuse in this regard. According to Save The Internet, a movement to preserve what they call "Net Neutrality," service providers have occasionally blocked service in ways that serve their interests. AOL, for instance, blocked all e-mails referring to www.dearaol.com, an online petition directed at stopping their plan to charge for e-mails. Further, some service providers want to charge web-based companies for faster service. This plan would enable, for example, CNN to pay more in order to make its website faster than FoxNews'.
In order to understand the problems with this idea, one must -- as we have so often in this last year -- remember ECON 201. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" only works in an economy with perfect competition. Monopolies and oligopolies prevent resources from being used in the best way possible by eliminating this competition. One of the ways to do so is to create high entry costs for new competitors. Another is to control the resources necessary for a particular industry. Allowing the telecommunications companies to charge for faster bandwidth use does both, as it raises the cost of creating a high-bandwidth website and gives more power to the services offered by the telecom companies -- Cox Communication's classified service, for example, would have lower costs than a site like craigslist.com, giving them an advantage in business, even if craigslist offers a better service.
Capitalism, to put it mildly, has its faults. It is only a just system if hard work and innovation truly leads to success. It could be argued that while this "American Dream" is in many cases a myth, the Internet provides ample evidence that in a market more-or-less free from both government interference and control by large corporations, offering a superior product can lead to success. The telecommunications companies threaten this fragile state of affairs by giving wealthier companies the means to eliminate competition, essentially placing the Internet under even more under the control of corporations than the rest of the economy.
The solution could lie in "Net Neutrality" regulations being considered by Congress. Perhaps the best hope lies in the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act," introduced in May by Senators Olympia Snowe (R, Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D, N. D.). The bill would make it illegal for internet providers to "block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair or degrade" specific content. It would also require them to allow users to attach any device they wished to their services, preventing service providers from discriminating against a certain hardware company. According to news.com, the bill has received support from a coalition of internet-based companies, including Google, eBay, Amazon.com, and Yahoo. They argue that the bill would allow innovative entrepreneurs "to continue to fuel the engine of our nation's economy and our global leadership in Internet technology and services."
The bill's opponents -- namely, the telecommunications companies -- claim that the bill would force them to charge more to consumers in order to make up costs. In reality, their plan would cost consumers just as much in the form of higher prices from internet-based companies like Amazon.com. Rejecting the bill would not lower costs, but would stifle creativity and entrepreneurship.
The bill, now in the Senate Commerce Committee, may represent the last hope for Net Neutrality laws. On June 8, the House rejected a similar amendment to a large telecommunications bill. The Senate bill has been co-sponsored by six other Senators, including Hillary Clinton (D, N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D, Ill.). It deserves vocal support from anyone who has ever used campusfood.com to order a pizza or written a paper with the help of wikipedia. Sign Save the Internet's petition, write Senator Allen, who serves on the Commerce Committee, and let the Senate know that the Internet must not be controlled by corporations who wish to eliminate competition.
Daniel Colbert is a Cavalier Daily Opinion columnist. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
COHEN: Facing federal cuts, U.Va. must defend affordability
By Ryan Cohen | YesterdayIn this uncertain environment, the University must act creatively and strategically to ensure it can maintain its commitment to affordability.
EDITORIAL: Commit to protecting noncitizens on Grounds
By Editorial Board | YesterdayThis has grown into a pattern of failing the rights of noncitizens to due process and overstepping judicial checks and balances on the executive branch.
CASTAGNO: Intensifying security theater in schools does not make them safer
By Conall Costagno | March 24, 2025Adding more stringent security measures will not solve the underlying issue, which is that schools must do more to invest in students’ mental health.
