Net Neutrality and Small Business

Written on May 25, 2007  |  by RP Mickler  |  Leave a Comment Leave a Comment  |  Bookmark and Share

Net Neutrality is the idea that all users on the Internet should be in control of their own content, applications, and have equal and fair share to bandwidth. Neutrality, in this context, suggests Federally-recognized economic classifications of bandwidth and content could prohibit or restrict Internet access for all. Net Neutrality is about unfettered and equal access to the Internet.

The threat to Net Neutrality was raised in 2006 by the 109th Congress’ 2nd session in the US by the introduction of HR 5252: The Communciations Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE). In May 2006, this bill was approved without adequate Net Neutrality provisions and on June 8, 2006, HR 5252 passed the House 321-101 with minimal amendment. The Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee Amendment, which would have protected Net Neutrality, was not adopted prior to introduction to the Senate. Because the bill contended with a Senate Commerce Commitee’s S. 2686 Telecom Bill, HR 5252 eventually died in the 109th 2nd session Senate without coming up for a vote.

But does that mean the Net Neutrality issue is resolved? Not at all. This is an ongoing fight being raged both domestically and abroad. Recently, telecommunications providers and market supporters have espoused a belief that Net Neutrality is genuinely un-American, that companies and individuals who use more bandwidth should have to pay premium prices.

Raising rates without providing additional value must be, after all, patriotic. There’s a certain “feel good, market forces, capitalist” flavor to this argument that is, at first glance, appealing to anyone that wants to make money on the Internet. Why shouldn’t those who use more pay more? Yet, for the critical thinker, small businesses should be terrified by that statement: the capability to compete with the big boys on the Internet would be dictated by economic forces. The Internet is a level playing field of open opportunity. It always has been. A bill like HR 5252 would stratify bandwidth and content access exacerbating the problem of information haves and have nots: the poor would have limited access to content and the wealthy more access to content. Small business would have less opportunity to market their products and increasing sales volume without suffering a bandwidth penalty, or, toll, for attracting more business through their portals. At second glance, Net Neutrality is simplified for the sake of capitalism but complicated for the sake of freedom and equal opportunity.

Anti-Net Neutrality laws would be bad for students as well; online education is a growing market modality for continuing education programs. It allows working professionals with families and work obligations to attend a college program and earn a degree. If students were forced to pay more for their Internet access because of their bandwidth consumption, this would put downward pressure on new enrollment because of financial constraint. It would increase the costs of providing for and attending an online university, further partitioning our society from those who do and don’t have access to a college education.

And disregarding Net Neutrality is bad for small business because it constrains opportunity and access. It puts downward pressure on innovation and forces small business to consider the financial risk of increasing bandwith and content provided to the consumer. It allows telecommunication providers to charge more while providing no additional value, in an era where capacity is abundant. Finally, in unfairly taxes the consumer who must make opportunity cost decisions on where they browse, what they read, and what they access on the Internet.

Interested in getting involved?

R