Why the Internet Should Not Be Treated As A Public Utility
By: Tiani Christian
Tags: Consumerism, Internet, Public Health, Public Policy, United States

In an era when the digital divide is more apparent than ever, many are weighing the pros and cons of offering internet access as a public utility. Public utilities such as water, gas, and electricity typically have a monopolistic power over the service that they offer, which means that the internet as a public utility would likely face regulations and the rates be dependent on that company’s discretion. The United States’ infrastructure for public utilities is already outdated and the nature of these services does not fit the nature of the internet. Given the business structure of other public utility companies, it would be a mistake to offer internet access as a public utility because it would eliminate healthy competition between internet companies and the nationally cohesive coverage, which is essential to the growth of technology, the freedom of internet usage and keeping rates down.

The digital divide is described by Campbell, Martin and Fabos (2017) as the contrast between those who are able to afford internet service and the accompanying technology such as phones and computers, and those who are not able to afford to buy a computer or pay for internet services. The divide is growing rapidly as the digital age progresses, and “39% of rural Americans” do not have access to broadband internet, which introduces one of the main arguments in favor of having internet as a public utility: inability to get service from the nation’s leading internet providers (1). Campbell, Martin and Fabos expect the amount of Americans who use smartphones to go from 55% to 77% by the year 2020. The internet is an essential part of searching for jobs, communicating with others, scheduling appointments, and other important duties, it’s very important that equal access to the internet is made a priority.

The internet is a resource that should be accessible to everybody in one way shape or form, but in the same way that one has to pay the water or electricity bill, the internet can still be accessible to the general public without being a centrally owned and monopolized utility. Making the internet a public utility, in the way that there would be one provider per designated area, would only hurt consumers in the long run because it would eliminate the competition that is necessary for technology and for economics. According to Larry Downes, “food, clothing and shelter” are examples of “essentials” and much like the internet, individuals need these items but they are not considered a public utility. As of right now, the majority of American households are able to choose between one of at least three internet providers, and limiting this to just one would be a “dangerously poor fit” (2). The ability of most people to pay for their own internet just like they pay for clothing and shelter is enough to terminate the need for it to be a public utility.

The competition that exists between internet providers is essential to the internet industry and making it a public utility would eliminate this healthy competition. Too often, public utility companies do not have any reason to innovate because of their monopolization and lack of competition, which would put a halt on innovation regarding the internet (2). In addition, public utilities do not go out of their way to please consumers as do competing internet providers. The approach that the US government is currently taking is the best solution: regulating the internet providers’ abilities to control the consumers’ use of the networks, such as not allowing providers to control the speed of certain cites in order to promote one business or the other (3). The regulation of internet providers is a more effective way of providing equal access to the internet than is making the internet a public utility and monopolizing it in specific areas.

Classifying the Internet as a public utility and operating it in a similar fashion as water and electricity would not only be expensive for taxpayers, but it would call for unnecessary restraints on consumers’ use of the internet. According to the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, regulating the internet would only take away the government’s incentive for innovation of the internet, and it would become a neglected, stagnant utility such as the outdated infrastructure that water, electricity, and gas currently operate from (4). It would take over $3 trillion to repair America’s infrastructure for the current utilities, meaning that adding the internet to the list would only be placing it into an already outdated and broken system (2). The quality of service can be expected to decrease if the internet were to accompany local utilities such as electricity, something that Americans often find themselves inconvenienced with already (2).

While it is important for citizens to have access to the internet, it should not be considered a public utility such as water, electricity or natural gas because the system that is already in place is the best fit for the nature of the internet. The regulations that would be placed on the internet would undermine the purpose of it. The FCC currently monitors the power of internet providers such as Verizon and AT&T to make sure that equal rights are given to customers, such as equal speed on every website and protection of their private information. Monopolizing the internet industry would damage it because the competition that goes on between internet providers is necessary for the innovation of internet technology and the economy. Introducing the internet to the United States’ outdated utility infrastructure would be regrettable because of the nature of the internet’s consumers and the nature of the network. While the internet is necessary to perform many important tasks such as job searching, researching, and communicating with others, it should be considered a necessity much like clothing and shelter.

References