Global Threats to Net Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission recently adopted strong net neutrality rules that should prevent cable and phone companies from creating fast and slow lanes on the Internet. But policy makers in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe and India, are considering very different kinds of rules that could hurt consumers and start-up Internet businesses.

Last month, the European Council, which is made up of the 28 national governments of European Union members, adopted a proposal that would allow telecommunications companies to charge Internet businesses like Netflix and Google fees to deliver their videos and other content to users faster than could smaller companies that cannot afford to pay for preferential treatment.

In India, the country’s telecommunications regulator asked for comments on whether it should adopt a provision similar to what Europe is considering. The regulator also asked if telecom companies should be able to charge users extra fees for services like YouTube, WhatsApp and Skype on top of the fees people already pay for access to the Internet.

These proposals would hurt consumers because access to some services would cost more money. They would also hurt smaller Internet businesses that could not afford to pay fees to get preferential access. By contrast, the F.C.C. adopted rules in February that prohibits deals for better delivery and also forbids telecom companies from blocking or slowing down content.

In Europe and India, proponents of weak net neutrality rules appear to have bought into the misguided notion that higher charges are necessary to keep telecommunications companies in business and, further, that the companies have a right to impose them. The idea goes something like this: Internet companies like Google and Facebook are making lots of money because cable and phone companies have built networks that give people access to their services. Therefore, Internet-based businesses should help pay the costs of creating, maintaining and upgrading networks.

This is a disingenuous argument. Telecom companies make money by charging individuals and businesses monthly fees for access to the network. If that revenue was inadequate to cover the cost of running networks, telecom companies would raise prices or they would become insolvent. If anything, prices have fallen as it has become cheaper to provide service. Big telecom companies like Vodafone, which does business in Europe and India, are in fact quite profitable.

There is resistance to the proposals in Europe and India, some of it from official sources. The European Parliament, for example, voted last year for legislation similar to the F.C.C. rules. Neither the rules adopted by Parliament nor the Council’s proposal can take effect until the Parliament, the Council and the European Commission, the executive branch of the E.U., work out a compromise.

In India, with the comment period underway, Internet activists have organized a campaign against the regulator’s proposal and appear to be having some impact. The minister of communications and information technology, Ravi Shankar Prasad, recently said on Twitter that the government would study the issue closely before adopting final rules, noting that the Internet belonged to all of “humanity and not to a few.”

One of the main reasons the Internet has been so successful is that people have generally been able to use it how they wish. The worst thing policy makers could do to the network would be to allow telecom companies to mess with that.