Net Neutrality (Editorial)

Tom Wheeler

Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, made a strong case last week when he announced that he would ask his fellow commissioners to adopt what’s known as the “Title II” approach to Internet neutrality.

He pointed out, in an essay published by Wired, that the Internet developed as it did only because of FCC regulation requiring AT&T to allow outside equipment — that would be modems, children — to attach to its network.

While America Online flourished using FCC-regulated telephone lines, Wheeler’s own startup company, NABU, tanked because it depended on cable television networks to deliver data to residential users. “The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story,” Wheeler wrote.

Regulation has become a bad word, and sometimes with good reason. But in the case of net neutrality, only the most aggressive effort to keep data flowing for all comers, not just those that are currently able to pay big bucks to travel in the “fast lane,” may be adequate.

Like Wheeler, we had hoped for something less extreme — although treating the Internet like the indispensable utility that it has become seems less extreme all the time. What tipped our thinking is the growing ability of big money to get its way in Washington. As Wheeler put it, using the “commercial reasonableness” standard “might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.”

The big Internet service providers would dearly love to be able to sell faster, prioritized service to Netflix and other 800-pound gorillas. We understand that, and we hear their protests that they will be less likely to invest in new and better equipment if they don’t have this lucrative new revenue source.

But the Internet itself is a lucrative — and still relatively new — revenue source. Making it more profitable for the biggest players while making it less useful for up-and-comers doesn’t sound like the best path forward.