Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

The Internet is much too precious to be left to the mercies of corporate monopolies. (Photo: Fight For The Future)

Dear FCC: Net Neutrality Is Part of a Social Contract

Victor Pickard

With his ringing endorsement for strong net neutrality protections, President Obama has joined a public groundswell for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reclassify the Internet as a utility. This move would not only enable the agency to remain true to its mandate to regulate in the public interest, it would also, according to the President and many of the nearly 4 million Americans who filed comments with the FCC, promote democratic values of openness, fairness and freedom.

Such overwhelming public support for what may seem like a wonky regulatory debate reminds us that net neutrality is and always has been much more than a technocratic squabble over how Internet "pipes" are managed. It's about the role of media and information in a democratic society, and the role of government—in this case the FCC—to help ensure access to information because, as we all learn in school, democracy requires an informed populace. Put simply, this is about a social contract between information providers, society and government.

"Weak net neutrality regulations risk not only irrelevance for the FCC, but also a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the public in whose name it regulates."

This contract must include a clear regulatory role for the FCC. Since the market won't automatically provide public goods like information, and since unregulated monopolies can threaten the health of our media system, government oversight is required. Without such authority, the FCC (which celebrated its 80th birthday this year) risks significant constraints and complications going forward. What will be the agency's purpose for the next 80 years, or even the next five? How will the FCC defend the public interest in the digital age—an age of new digital monopolies? Weak net neutrality regulations risk not only irrelevance for the FCC, but also a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the public in whose name it regulates.

We've been down this road before. In the 1930s and '40s, commercial radio was roughly the same age as today's commercial Internet. It was seen as a revolutionary force that would democratize society, give voice to the voiceless, and educate the masses. And there was a great debate in this country about how that medium should operate: whose interests it should serve, who should own and control it, whether it should remain predominantly commercial or be publicly subsidized with significant obligations to public affairs and educational content.

Once it became clear that a few corporations would dominate radio, the debate turned to specific regulatory questions: If we give broadcasters tremendous benefits— like monopolistic use of the public airwaves—what do they owe society in return? Are they obligated to share this scarce resource to include diverse voices? Is broadcast media primarily an instrument for democracy or for profit? As the medium became increasingly commercialized and ownership more concentrated, regulatory authority became tenuous. Despite admirable attempts to keep broadcasters beholden to the public interest, the FCC fell back on relatively weak regulatory guidelines, like the Fairness Doctrine, and ultimately lost the battle to salvage much of commercial radio and television's democratic potential.

Today we face a similar quandary with the Internet. We're again deciding what information providers are allowed to do with the content that flows through their conduits. Again, we are deciding the future of a key information infrastructure that has a profound impact on our daily lives. And it is, once again, an infrastructure dominated by monopolies. Will we repeat the mistakes of the past and let monopoly power over infrastructure shape the type of content available to the public? Or will we empower the public by safeguarding an open Internet?

Given the technological and economic changes in our communication systems, these questions are especially pressing, and decisions made now may set the Internet's course for decades to come. But without reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service, as the President argues, the FCC will not have the authority to maintain an open Internet. Word has leaked that the FCC is considering a "hybrid" plan that would still allow preferential treatment of content with Internet fast and slow lanes—exactly what the President identified as detrimental to the Internet's democratic potential—and would likely be overturned in court. Like we saw with broadcast media in the 1940s, a weak decision by the FCC today that allows internet service providers to become gatekeepers might lead us down a slippery slope of unaccountable information providers and ineffectual regulators.

Net neutrality cannot solve all of the problems facing the Internet—especially lack of competition in the American Internet service marketplace, both from other commercial operators and from alternative models like municipal-owned broadband networks. But without strong protections that ensure all Internet content is treated equally, we may end up with a powerless FCC, few checks on Internet access monopolies who abuse their market power, and a public ill-served by its information system.

The Internet is no longer a luxury for those who can pay or a profitable plaything for a handful of corporations. It is a daily necessity; Americans rely on it not just for entertainment, but also for schoolwork, health and their livelihood. It is much too precious to be left to the mercies of Internet monopolies. It must be protected by an FCC that governs not only in the public's name but also with its consent.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Victor Pickard

Victor Pickard

Victor Pickard is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication where he co-directs the Media, Inequality & Change Center. He is the author of the recent book "Democracy Without Journalism?"

... We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

'Like a Teenager Promising to Clean Their Room in 30 Years': Biden Net-Zero Climate Goal for 2050 Ridiculed

"2050 is an extremely weak goal for the federal government to free itself from climate-heating pollution. It ignores existing technology and adds decades to GSA's own commitment to 100% renewable energy by 2025."

Brett Wilkins ·

Biden Should Cancel Student Debt or Watch $85 Billion Evaporate From US Economy: Analysis

Far-reaching cancellation enacted by Biden could add more than $173 billion to the nation's GDP in 2022 alone.

Kenny Stancil ·

Given Cover by Red-Baiting GOP, Corporate Dems Rebuked for Tanking Biden Nominee for Top Bank Regulator

"If you think that Senate Democrats rose up to [Republicans'] shameful display of modern McCarthyism by rallying around President Biden's nominee or her ideas that banking should work for the middle class, then you don't know the soul of today's Democratic Party," wrote one columnist.

Julia Conley ·

'S.O.S.!': Groups in Red States Nationwide Plead With Democrats to Pass Voting Rights Bill

"We can tell you firsthand that our Republican senators have no interest in joining this effort."

Jake Johnson ·

Revealed: US Public Pension Funds Are 'Quiet Culprits of Climate Chaos'

One activist called divestment "an ethical responsibility" given that "maintaining the status quo of fossil fuel energy production and investments will unquestionably lead to a self-created catastrophe."

Jessica Corbett ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.

Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo