By Joseph A. Curtatone

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

The FCC took a historic and important stand last week when it voted in favor of innovation and equal access by embracing the value of net neutrality. By reclassifying Internet service providers as public utilities, the FCC has ensured that all internet traffic is treated equally and providers won’t be able to create a virtual fast lane for those with the means to pay more. The FCC’s action is a demonstration of how good government regulation can protect both private sector innovation and consumers at the same time.

When the well-known internet companies we know today like Google, Facebook, Ebay and Amazon first launched as start-ups years ago, they did not have to pay more to ensure they had the same broadband speed as already established companies with deep pockets. They were not subjected to higher fees to ensure that their websites would work as well as those large companies. And they did not have to apply to internet service providers for permission for users to access them via those providers’ networks.

The entrepreneurs behind then start-ups had an idea spark, put in the work to match their vision, and launched their product online. In doing so, so they created jobs and revenue for our economy or they spread knowledge and information via sites like Wikipedia or MayoClinic.org. That is the kind of innovation we embrace here in Somerville, with those next-generation companies helping us expand our commercial sector and create a strong, resilient local economy alongside the terrific local businesses we already have in our community.

That kind of innovation would be severely hindered if start-up companies do not have access to the same internet service as already established companies. It would be like telling Federal Express, UPS or DHL that they could not use our road and airway infrastructure when they first started business. Just as we did not block access to our actual highways, we should not block access to the digital highway for new internet-based businesses.

In some strange corners, net neutrality—like too many issues we face together—is being used as a partisan wedge between the two parties in Washington. This is ironic, given that in a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court dissent opinion, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that Internet service providers were incorrectly categorized by the FCC, an error corrected by last week’s vote. Joining Scalia in his dissenting opinion were liberal Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This is not a partisan issue, and anyone who portrays it as such is playing scare-politics in the name of drumming up votes, instead of doing what is best for our economy and consumers. It’s a commonsense reclassification that applies the correct, already-in-place classification to Internet providers.

This commonsense step is important for our economy, by upholding equal internet access to start-up companies, and for you, the consumer. No matter what online source you turn to for news, information or entertainment, each website and product is treated equally and neutrally by your Internet provider. Consumers should not have to shop around for internet providers because one favors the New York Times over the Wall Street Journal, or vice versa, or because a provider forces these news outlets to either pay more or face slower speeds.

Requiring net neutrality is good government at work. This is government acting in the best interest of both business and consumers, of both knowledge and innovation. The FCC took the right stand in reaffirming the Internet essentially as a public good that we all share equal access to so that we can learn and thrive as we all determine rather than allowing a corporation to censor or manage our use of it. We should keep this in mind as we face more challenges when it comes to disruptive, innovative technologies, balancing innovation with consumer protection.

The FCC’s vote for net neutrality last week shows that government can create regulations that not only avoid stifling innovation but help it thrive, while putting rules in place that protect the public. It also shows that speaking up—often via the Internet—matters. The FCC received more than four million comments on this issue that they stated themselves swayed their decision. Let’s keep our voices raised as the inevitable lawsuits to reverse this decision—as well as the progress toward municipal broadband—are sure to come.