Don't let them pinch the Internet

Free markets are fantastic systems for growing an economically healthy society. A free market creates a competitive atmosphere that benefits consumers and provides a forum for the best and brightest entrepreneur to shine. The free market is great for commodities.

The system has its limitations, though. An unencumbered market falters when applied to some ideals and theories, such as democracy. The Internet, which has become the major conduit for modern communications, will not be a free market of ideas if dominated by a few companies that have proven time and again that profits and control trump any notion of stewardship.

Many House Republicans either do not understand this, do not care, or are doing the bidding of the telecommunications and cable industries. This was evident Tuesday during an Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing.

The hearing centered on a bill introduced by the telecommunications and the Internet subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and co-sponsored by Rep. Charles Pickering, R-Miss. The Internet Preservation Act of 2008 is a common-sense piece of legislation that should not give lawmakers regulatory heartburn.

The bill would insert nondiscrimination language regarding access to broadband into the Communications Act of 1934. The nondiscrimination clause is not a hammer for the Federal Communications Commission to go after network providers. It is really baseline language clarifying that the Internet is vital infrastructure that must remain open to legal content.

The new provision might not be the vise the FCC needs, but having a form of network neutrality codified in the Communications Act gives the commission enforcement authority.

The Republicans on the subcommittee seemed to have a problem with any Internet enforcement outside of patrolling for illegal content. Their opening remarks at the hearing read as if written by the same person. More than one Republican compared regulating the Internet to the government's regulation of waterways and railways. Nearly all of the Republicans also argued that the free market will weed out bad actors.

Not great arguments. The cast of network providers is a worrisome few and needs nurturing, not thinning.

The nation's transportation byways are vital infrastructure that should be regulated to ensure access. The Internet is no different, and has quickly become a vital part of the nation's infrastructure. There is barely anything the Internet does not touch. From commerce to communication, we are dependent on the World Wide Web.

The Internet is too important for the few companies providing the service to interfere with content. Unfortunately, those companies have demonstrated their unwillingness to be hands-off hosts.

AT&T censored politically charged talk during a Pearl Jam concert broadcast on the Internet. Verizon refused NARAL Pro-Choice America's request to send out a blanket text message to supporters. The case currently generating the most scrutiny is Comcast's blocking of file sharing, or peer-to-peer applications.

Comcast's actions were so egregious they spurred the FCC into action. The commission has held two hearings on the matter. The case is significant, not just because the FCC lumbered into action, but because Comcast has said the FCC does not have the authority to intervene.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin disagrees. He might have a case but the commission is vulnerable without something like the Internet Freedom Act.

Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press — a nonprofit that works on issues of media consolidation and net neutrality — told the subcommittee there are two visions for the Internet: one being an open model, the other a network-provider-controlled system.

"A duopoly market of phone and cable companies will not discipline itself. This is a clear moment for the Congress to act and pass the Internet Freedom and Preservation Act. The future of the Internet for everyone depends on it," Scott said.

Channels of ideas are too important to leave in the hands of a duopoly hiding behind a free-market argument.

Republicans need not fear this bill but should worry about what happens if nothing is done now. The mild provisions of the Internet Preservation Act could head off more abuses by network providers.

The FCC and Congress will undoubtedly implement much harsher net-neutrality laws if network providers keep chipping away at an open Internet.

Ryan Blethen's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is rblethen@seattletimes.com