*Disclaimer: This essay was originally submitted as an assignment at the University of Denver’s University College. This essay was submitted as a requirement towards a master’s of arts in communication management.
The world thrives on opportunity, innovation, and community. These three aspects of life drive who we are as people, how we live life, and what we cherish. Over the thousands of years humans have been on Earth, few milestones have been as life-changing as the invention of the internet. The internet now drives education, entrepreneurship, health and wellness, government services, community engagement, finances, and social connections (Becker et al. 2010). With the internet’s ties to much of life, the debate about its availability remains widespread. But, as the world becomes more connected, it becomes more evident that no one should not have to pay for internet access anywhere, including at home.
The argument of the classification for the internet as a public utility has many complex nuances. Many of these arguments lead to net neutrality or “the notion that all internet traffic, regardless of its source, must be treated the same by Internet Service Providers (ISPs)” (Litan 2014, 1). These arguments include lawful regulation of ISPs and the fear that ISPs will charge for access to, or faster access to, specific websites. However, these arguments often miss the mark for why a better classification of the internet is essential. Instead of thinking of the internet as a utility, the internet should be considered a human right.
Human rights are a commonality of humans based on morality (Tasioulas 2015). These commonalities are what is required for someone to have a decent life, including “subsistence, physical security, and shelter,” as well the removal of discrimination and equal status in “political and civil rights” (Reglitz 2020, 315). The benefits of free and available internet answers to these requirements. While it might not provide life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our communities become more intertwined with the internet year after year. And each year, opportunities are lost due to a lack of access to the internet.
Some American public services have already noted the importance of free internet access. In 1996, twenty-eight percent of public libraries offered this service, but by 2010, almost all did (Becker et. al 2010). Like libraries, Community Technology Centers have been set up globally, effectively providing access to low-income communities (Wamuyu 2017). A report from the Institute of Museum and Library Services shows why the internet is critical in educational, health, and employment purposes (Becker et. al 2010). The COVID-19 pandemic has proven that access needs expanding. With communities locked down, at-home schooling, and public meeting places closed, free and reliable internet access is necessary. If all children are to succeed and have equal opportunity, then the internet must be accessible and free at home.
The opponents of free internet access claim that providing this service will limit ISP and tech innovation due to the lack of financial return (Telecommunications Industry Association 2014). Other opponents claim that ISPs will become stifled and that companies only build infrastructure to compete with each other (Becker, Carlton, and Sider 2010). However, these arguments forget about communities. While these opponents believe the free market will work itself towards available internet to everyone, 3.7 million students lack consistently reliable internet access in the United States (USAFacts 2020). The ISPs have proven that they do not care about communities; they care about profit.
If the United States and the rest of the world wish to continue innovating and relying on the internet, the governments must be willing to provide free access. The benefits are too great, and the room for the disparity is too large. This is not an issue that the free market can decide. It is an issue about human rights. With free internet access for all, we can all share the opportunity, innovation, and community.
References
Becker, Gary S., Dennis W. Carlton, and Hal S. Sider. 2010. “Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare.” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 6, no. 3 (September): 497-519. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhq016.
Becker, Samantha, Michael D. Crandall, Karen E. Fisher, Bo Kinney, Carol Landry, and Anita Rocha. 2010. Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries. Washington, DC, Institute of Museum and Library Services. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510740.
Litan, Robert. 2014. Regulating Internet Access as a Public Utility: A Boomerang on Tech If It Happens. Washington, DC: Economic Studies at Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/regulating_internet_access_public_utility_litan.pdf.
Reglitz, Merten. 2020. “The Human Right to Free Internet Access.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 37, no. 2 (May): 314-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12395.
Tasioulas, John. 2015. “On the Foundations of Human Rights.” In Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights, edited by Rowan Cruft, Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo, 45-70. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0002.
Telecommunications Industry Association. 2014. “Internet Ecosystem Letter FINAL 12.10.14.” Letter from TIA to Congress, December 10, 2014. Archived on Archive.org, February 16, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150216163709/http://www.tiaonline.org/sites/default/files/pages/Internet_ecosystem_letter_FINAL_12.10.14.pdf.
USAFacts. 2020. “4.4 Million Households with Children Don’t Have Consistent Access to Computers for Online Learning During the Pandemic.” September 28, 2020, accessed October 3, 2020. https://usafacts.org/articles/internet-access-students-at-home/. Wamuyu, Patrick Kanyi. 2017. “Bridging the Digital Divide Among Low Income Urban Communities. Leveraging Use of Community Technology Centers. Telematics and Informatics 34, no. 8 (December): 1709-1720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.08.004.