On Wednesday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a proposed rule to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act. The draft’s release marks the beginning of a new chapter in the ongoing saga to re-impose network neutrality after the FCC’s Open Internet Order was struck down by the DC Court of Appeals last year — a push to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to treat all traffic on the net equally, preventing them from charging for priority access.

While this principle of fairness may seem reasonable at first glance, the harsh truth is that not all traffic is created equally. Net neutrality’s aim to impose one-size-fits-all policy on the Internet threatens to slow the pace of technological innovation. Furthermore, subjecting ISPs to the same outdated regulations at telephone companies threatens to decrease online access for low-income individuals by subjecting ISPs to telecom taxes. Lawmakers should speak up against the FCC’s dangerous power grab before it’s too late.

ADVERTISEMENT
Net neutrality would make sense in a world where all website traffic was equal. In the real world, however, popular sites like Netflix and YouTube receive significantly more traffic than others and, as a result, consume significantly more bandwidth. To be specific, Netflix and YouTube account for over half of all peak-hour download traffic, often leading to slower connection speeds across ISP networks.

As a result, ISPs like Comcast have asked some of the most notorious traffic hogs for payment so customers can enjoy priority streaming speeds on their sites — a reasonable request given the unreasonable amount of bandwidth they consume. Consequently, Netflix has coughed up the dough, resulting in a 66 percent increase in connection speed through Comcast’s network since January 2014. Net neutrality would kill such a mutually beneficial trade by forcing ISPs to treat websites like Netflix equally despite their unequal consumption.

It’s not just connection speed that’s at risk with the FCC’s reclassification, but technological innovation itself. Perhaps no better example exists than the very first case the FCC brought against a company for violating its now defunct Open Internet Order. In 2010, the budget mobile telecom company MetroPCS began offering its largely lower-income customers a plan that included unlimited YouTube streaming thanks to special technology the video website shared with the company to work on its constrained network. However, because MetroPCS did not offer the same deal for other video sites like Netflix and Hulu (despite the fact that they lacked the technology like YouTube), the FCC ordered the network to suspend the offer.

MetroPCS’s case is just one of countless technological innovations that could be under threat should net neutrality be given the force of law yet again, restricting low-income Americans access to affordable Internet plans. In fact, Title II reclassification would do even more to harm Internet affordability by subjecting ISPs to the same onerous federal, state, and local taxes as telecommunication companies. According to a recent joint study by the Brookings Institution’s Bob Litan and the Progressive Policy Institute’s Hal Singer, these new fees would amount to an average of $67 a year for wireline and $72 a year for wireless service, doubtlessly discouraging many low-income Americans from connecting to the wealth of knowledge and possibility that is the World Wide Web.

The Internet has flourished in a relatively laissez faire regulatory environment for decades, allowing ISPs and websites to evolve to the ever-changing technological demands of their customers. Title II reclassification would threaten this formula for innovation by overruling the work of technology experts with the demand of government bureaucrats. For the sake of a future of free and truly open internet, policy makers must stop them before it is too late.

Given is Director of Young Voices, a policy project of the international nonprofit Students For Liberty. He is also a masters candidate in Public Policy at The George Washington University.