The College Fix

Egyptians were effectively cut off from the Internet around 12:30 a.m. Cairo time on January 27 (the sheer magnitude of that loss is depicted in this graph: http://bit.ly/eWXrJB), as the government shut down nine of the country’s ten largest Internet service providers (ISPs), blocking Internet access for some 88 percent of all Egyptians.

The blackout in Egypt—described as “unprecedented in Internet history” by online intelligence analyst James Cowie—is also the most visceral example of why supposed Net Neutrality is incredibly dangerous.

Let’s be clear. All of us, Net Neutrality advocates and opponents alike, want an easily accessible, open and free Internet—and not just so we can illegally download celebrity sex tapes (although that’s definitely part of it). The Internet has served as an incredibly powerful organizing tool domestically (just ask President Obama, who raised $500 million online, according to the Washington Post), and abroad, with Facebook and Twitter playing key roles in the mobilization of entire countries against undemocratic governments.

Net Neutrality poses, to use a phrase, an existential threat to that openness, as it would give government the ability to directly shut down the Internet. It is posited on the hypothetical idea that ISPs (like Mediacom, Qwest, etc.) want to control what you can and cannot see online.  They could hypothetically charge you an additional $10/month to use Netflix, $15/month to use Hulu, etc. Then, the hypothetical goes, they could start censoring political views by making political blogs (think DailyKos or RedState) pay-to-view.

Of course, and I think it’s important to repeat this, that scenario is hypothetical. In case you haven’t noticed, we already have a neutral Net, and it’s, in a word, amazing.

But Net Neutrality advocates want the government to step in and regulate the Internet to prevent ISPs from hypothetically charging me an extra $15/month to use Hulu. The government agency responsible for this regulation, however, would be our good ol’ buds over at the FCC.

The FCC, as I’m sure you know, has a GREAT record of promoting open, free and uncensored communication (…wait), and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is thrilled about the possibility of expanding his regulatory authority to the Internet. After all, the FCC has been trying to regulate cable and satellite TV since the Bush Administration.

And while Net Neutrality proponents argue that the only thing the FCC would do is prevent ISPs from offering anything but a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, Chairman Genachowski’s own words are a little more chilling: “It is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications.” (Emphasis mine.)

Think about that for a minute. How much pirated (see: illegal) content do you think is on YouTube? On literally any P2P network? On PirateBay? WikiLeaks? What if the Government decides that porn should be illegal again? Literally all of these are under assault by either the government or other major corporations, and giving the government the authority to directly regulate what an ISP can and cannot do is incredibly dangerous for one more reason.

The Net will remain neutral as long as we have the ability to choose our ISPs. In the immediate future, this is not a concern. According to the FCC itself, 95 percent of all Americans lived in a zip code with access to at least four different ISPs, and there are nearly 1,500 different ISPs nationwide (compared to Egypt’s big ten).  We have nearly 200 separate Internet providers in Iowa alone, and Iowa City is among the aforementioned 95 percent.

Thus, given the highly decentralized nature of American communications, the only way for the Internet’s neutrality to be truly threatened—and in a worse case scenario, shut off—the government would have to be involved with and connected to every single ISP.

And if the government has the authority to regulate what I can and cannot see on the Internet, it will regulate what I can and cannot see on the Internet. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. The FCC started with radio, now regulates broadcast TV, and is trying to expand to cable and the Internet.

You can rest assured that if the FCC gets full “Net Neutrality” regulatory powers of the Internet, it won’t remain “neutral” for long.

Also: China.

Zach Wahls is a columnist for the Daily Iowan. He is a contributor to the Student Free Press Association.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter