Corporate players like Google and AT & T require big debate on Net neutrality

Commentary by Kay B. Day

If you’re not clear about the term ‘Net neutrality,’ don’t feel lonesome. It’s a complicated issue with big corporate players and the government controlling the debate. But decisions and consequences of those decisions about the Internet can have a profound impact on how consumers use the Internet and what content we have access to.

The Libertarian-leaning Center for Individual Freedom calls Net neutrality ‘government’s newest takeover plan’ and ‘corporate welfare for Google.’ 

Tech site ArsTechnica offers a simple explanation of the flip side of the CIF position on Net neutrality: “The issues involved are thorny when you wade deep into the weeds, but consumer-level support for network neutrality seems largely driven by simple principle: AT&T should not be ‘speeding up’ websites with deep pockets, leaving everyone else to languish in the slow lane.”

Because the Federal Communications Commission voted last week to officially get the debate going, with the intent of formalizing guidelines, consumers should be asking questions and seeking information about the possible consequences of increased government involvement with control of the Net.

There’s a virtual overload of information from sources like the ubiquitous Wikipedia, Net neutrality proponent Google, CIF and dozens of other sources. Some consumers have possibly experienced a negative impact of not having regulations. Reuters quotes a source in an article that should have carried a ‘commentary’ tag: “Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and only changed policy after the threat of FCC net neutrality rules. AT&T sought to block customers from using VoIP services from its wireless network, but changed policy out of fear of the net neutrality rules. The trend seems to be that these providers only do the 'right thing' when the net neutrality gun is pointing at their head.”

Ars Technica's very balanced analysis points out: “But here's the thing—price discrimination happens all the time (US college fees vary widely based on one's ability to pay, for instance). And while ISPs are one obvious chokepoint on the Internet, they aren't the only one. Massive search engines like Google can easily become another, and it might not be long before the government needs to think about other forms of ‘neutrality.’”

For instance, Google dominates search engines, and it’s generally believed backlinks are arguably the greatest single factor in determining a website’s ranking. But backlinks are fairly easy to game. Do a cursory search on any political topic and it's my experience top results will trend neoliberal.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced the Internet Freedom Act, ostensibly instructing the FCC to keep its hands off the Net.

Meanwhile, Google’s ties to the administration of President Barack Obama are indisputable, and the corporation stands to benefit, perhaps not directly but in any case positively, as PC World reports: “Google is the early winner in a drive to turn the U.S. government into a major user of cloud-based applications.”

A robust public debate is absolutely necessary. Main Streeters are bombarded with government’s expansion of federally dictated healthcare, government’s one-sided approach to constructing a financial bubble guised as global warming and politically-quagmired wars abroad.

There’s a 120-day window for open discussion. That window has not been publicized by newspapers or longtime branded TV networks. It’s in the consumer’s best interest to learn more about Net neutrality as major corporate interests like Google and At&T have dominated the Net neutrality debate thus far and they stand to gain or lose depending on the guidelines that prevail.