Should the Internet Be a Public Utility?
Water comes through public pipes. Electricity flows through regulated grids. Roads are public infrastructure. Should internet access be treated the same way—as essential public infrastructure rather than a commercial service sold by private companies?
The Utility Argument
Proponents of treating internet as a public utility argue:
Essential service: Internet access has become necessary for education, employment, healthcare, government services, and civic participation. Treating essentials as market commodities creates exclusion that treating them as public goods would prevent.
Natural monopoly characteristics: Like electricity or water, internet infrastructure has high fixed costs and network effects that tend toward monopoly. Competition is limited, and market forces do not reliably produce affordable, universal access.
Equity: Private markets serve profitable customers first. Rural, remote, and low-income communities are underserved because serving them is less profitable. Public provision or utility regulation can prioritize equity over profit.
Net neutrality: Public utility treatment would support net neutrality—the principle that internet service providers should not discriminate among content or users. Without regulation, ISPs could favor some services over others.
The Market Argument
Opponents of public utility treatment argue:
Innovation: Market competition drives innovation. Utility regulation, designed for stable technologies, may not accommodate the rapid change characteristic of telecommunications.
Investment: Private investment has built much of existing internet infrastructure. Utility regulation or public ownership might reduce investment incentives, slowing infrastructure improvement.
Government limitations: Government-run services may be bureaucratic, unresponsive, and politically influenced. Private companies competing for customers may be more efficient and customer-focused.
Complexity: Internet service is more complex than water or electricity. Multiple technologies (fiber, cable, wireless, satellite), rapidly changing capabilities, and varied service types make utility-style regulation difficult.
Models in Practice
Municipal Broadband
Some cities have built municipal broadband networks, providing internet service directly to residents. Chattanooga, Tennessee is often cited as a successful example. In Canada, municipal networks exist in some communities, though they are not widespread.
Municipal networks can serve areas private providers neglect, provide competitive pressure, and prioritize public interest. But they require significant public investment and face opposition from incumbent providers.
Public-Private Partnerships
Governments can partner with private providers—providing subsidies, guaranteeing demand, or contributing infrastructure—while private companies operate services. This model has been used for rural broadband expansion in Canada.
Utility Regulation
Rather than public ownership, utility regulation treats private providers as regulated monopolies—controlling prices, requiring service standards, and mandating universal access. This is how telephone service traditionally operated.
Open Access
Open access models separate infrastructure (the physical network) from service provision. Public or regulated entities own infrastructure; multiple service providers compete to offer service over that infrastructure. This model is common in some European countries.
The Canadian Context
Internet service in Canada is provided primarily by private companies—large telecoms (Bell, Rogers, Telus) and cable companies (Shaw/Rogers, Videotron) dominate the market. The CRTC regulates telecommunications but has not treated internet as a utility.
Canadian internet prices are among the highest in developed countries. Rural and remote areas have significant connectivity gaps. Affordability programs exist but are limited.
The federal government has committed to universal broadband access but has relied primarily on subsidies to private providers rather than public provision or utility regulation.
The Question
If internet access has become essential for participation in modern society, then how it is provided and governed is a public policy choice with profound implications. Should internet be treated as a public utility—with the universal access obligations and price regulation that implies? Or does market provision, perhaps with targeted subsidies, better balance access with innovation and efficiency? And who should decide—and on what basis—how essential digital infrastructure is governed?