A threat to the free flow of information

Donald Trump may be flailing politically. But Thursday brought a reminder that even as the president’s stumbles dominate the daily headlines his administration is pulling the United States sharply to the right.

The latest example is the decision by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to give broadband companies much greater power to control what Americans see and hear online.

The Republican majority on the FCC voted to scrap Obama-era rules that enshrine the principle of “net neutrality” – the idea that the big broadband companies must treat websites equally. They shouldn’t be allowed to block some sites, charge more to let consumers access some sites faster than others, or discriminate against some content.

In other words, there should be equal access to the internet and all the information that flows through it.

Ending that principle is a terrible idea. It opens the door to all sorts of abuse by the handful of giant companies that dominate the market for broadband services. One of the two Democrats on the FCC warns that Republicans are “handing the keys to the internet” to a “handful of multibillion dollar corporations.”

In principle, those providers could favour their own content over others. Or they could rig the system so that web companies that pay them a fee can deliver content faster to consumers, giving them a crucial edge over competitors who won’t pay up. They could even choke off free speech for political reasons.

Canada, fortunately, is a strong supporter of net neutrality, regarded as a world leader in upholding the principle that the internet should be an open, free-flowing network.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reiterated that principle as the FCC moved toward its decision. “I am very concerned about the attacks on net neutrality,” he said last month. “It’s essential to keep the freedom associated with the internet alive.”

But Canadians should not be complacent that the American decision will leave us untouched, even with a government so firmly committed to maintaining a level playing field on the internet.

For one thing, Canadians rely heavily on all sorts of digital content from U.s.-based sites – from social media to streaming services to news providers. If access to content in the United States is manipulated, it’s bound to affect us.

And if U.S. providers really do take advantage of the new rules to favour some content over others (for a fee, naturally), it would be quite predictable for Canadian companies to seek similar treatment in this country in the name of “harmonization.” Pressure on Ottawa to bend the rules could well increase down the road.

There’s no reason to believe things will change overnight. The FCC’S move has been sharply contested, and the big U.S. broadband companies like Comcast and Verizon know they will be under intense scrutiny not to abuse the new powers they are being handed. Consumers and internet advocates will be on guard.

But many billions of dollars are at stake. And over time it may prove irresistible for the providers to take advantage of the rules and bend the internet more and more to their commercial needs. It may start small, but as consumers get used to differentiated services the trend could pick up. Smaller companies and start-ups that can’t pay the freight may be squeezed out.

That’s why citizens should not have to rely on the goodwill, or even the common sense, of giant companies to guarantee an open, neutral internet. The FCC’S decision should be challenged and rolled back.

And even in Canada, where the government stands firm in favour of net neutrality, the principle should not depend on political whim. It should be enshrined in law and made more difficult for future governments to change.