Net neutrality rules are worth keeping

Equality always has a nice ring of justice to it, which creates a problem for Ajit Pai, the chairman of the US Federal Communications Committee (FCC), who wants to roll back “net neutrality” regulations, which require that internet service providers treat all types of internet traffic the same. “Fast lanes” for favoured companies (or the ISPs’ own content) are forbidden, as is throttling back the unfavoured.

The arguments for keeping the rules in place are vivid. Very large companies — Google, Netflix, Facebook and so on — could afford to pay for blazing-fast service from the ISPs. Smaller competitors could not, putting them at a disadvantage and entrenching the vast incumbents even more. The FCC recognises this risk and argues that customers offered a two-speed internet will defect to other ISPs, and that beefed-up antitrust enforcement will prevent the worst offences.

These are not strong arguments. Superior wireless internet technology may enrich the competitive environment before long. For now, though, consumers are mostly stuck with what their ISP gives them.

The FCC is, however, quite right to point out that the equal treatment mandated by net neutrality can also create unfairness. Just two companies, Netflix and YouTube, consume half of internet bandwidth. Yet the ISPs are not allowed to make them pay a toll for hogging the road. If they could, they could use the additional revenue on infrastructure improvements.

The service provided by the ISPs has made staggering profits possible for big tech. Why should consumers, and not the tech companies themselves, pay the bill for that service? And if the next innovation — think of driverless cars — requires dedicated superfast connections to be useful and safe, it would surely make sense for the companies that will profit from that innovation to pay for the network that supports it.

The dilemma is real. London, November 24