Our View: Net access should be the same for all content

May 18, 2014 

There’s a decidedly Californian tone to the “ net neutrality” debate over how online content should be delivered by phone and cable companies: Should it be more like the water that flows through your plumbing? Or more like a cab on an Internet freeway with a for-profit Fastrak lane?

For years, the Federal Communications Commission has sought a way to ensure that Internet providers such as Comcast and Verizon can’t play favorites among the websites they carry through their wires or on their waves. The fear is that, without oversight, the companies that control Internet access will have too much power over what gets seen and how fast it is delivered, which in turn could hurt competition and free speech.

But devising rules that will stand up in court has been an ongoing challenge, partly because, in 2002, the FCC classified cable modems as “information services” rather than telecommunications. This limited the commission’s regulatory powers – and conveniently set the cable and phone companies up to make a bundle.

Last week, the FCC opened the formal comment period on two sets of draft options. One would reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, making it more like a public utility – say, the phone company, or the infrastructure that delivers your water. Reclassification would allow for tougher regulation, and force Internet service providers to give equal treatment to all the traffic on their networks.

Phone and cable companies, not surprisingly, already have come out against that, saying it would impose onerous costs and stifle innovation. The real thing they’re worried about is cutting off an income stream. They had planned to charge content companies extra to access faster delivery; they would also charge consumers extra to get the fastest feeds.

Their preference is for a second FCC option that would allow for a two-tiered system – a Fastrak – on which they could charge content companies such as Netflix and Amazon for super-fast, VIP access to their subscribers.

The FCC’s proposed rules would tightly restrict that fast lane. Internet providers couldn’t cut deals that were “commercially unreasonable,” and they would have to keep giving subscribers a basic and undiminished level of service.

Consumer advocates are keenly skeptical.

So are we. The cable companies don’t have the best track record when it comes to looking out for consumers in either providing service, or providing content at competitive prices. Allowed to create monopolies, they have insisted on selling consumers “bundles” of products whether they wanted all of it or not.

It’s early in the 120-day comment period, and rules aren’t expected until the year’s end. But anyone who has ever turned on a tap knows how freely and easily a product can flow when no one can mess with the plumbing.

And anyone who has ever taken the Fastrak over the Golden Gate Bridge knows that the toll ultimately comes out of only one pocket – the consumer’s – and the price of priority access only goes one way.

Modesto Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service