Net Neutrality is the idea that an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Verizon, AT&T, Bright House, etc…, should treat all internet access the same way. What that means is that, currently, ISPs are (sort of legally) able to bottleneck internet speeds by charging companies, such as Netflix, more money for faster connections to their customers. They are also able to charge customers more to be in the “online fast lane.”
Supporters of Net Neutrality argue that ISPs should be reclassified as “Common Carriers”, which are titles reserved for companies that are mandated by the government to provide the same service to everyone without discrimination. Companies that already fall under the Common Carrier category are gas, electricity, and landline phone service. All of these services are the same to everyone who uses them for the same cost. One person’s electric bill might be higher than another’s, but only because they used more. The electric company cannot charge you more money to have your lights shine brighter or your water get hotter.
You might be asking yourself “What good would changing their title do?” It would basically force them to create standards for all customers. Currently, ISPs are considered to be “Information Services” which don’t have any regulations concerning what services they provide and at what cost to the user. They are allowed to bottleneck online speeds, and then offer packages that allow for higher speeds at higher prices. So, if they were reclassified as “Common Carriers”, everyone would have access to the same high speed internet, regardless of what ISP they had, where they were, or what website they were on.
Supporters of Net Neutrality argue that ISPs should be reclassified as “Common Carriers”, which are titles reserved for companies that are mandated by the government to provide the same service to everyone without discrimination. Companies that already fall under the Common Carrier category are gas, electricity, and landline phone service. All of these services are the same to everyone who uses them for the same cost. One person’s electric bill might be higher than another’s, but only because they used more. The electric company cannot charge you more money to have your lights shine brighter or your water get hotter.
You might be asking yourself “What good would changing their title do?” It would basically force them to create standards for all customers. Currently, ISPs are considered to be “Information Services” which don’t have any regulations concerning what services they provide and at what cost to the user. They are allowed to bottleneck online speeds, and then offer packages that allow for higher speeds at higher prices. So, if they were reclassified as “Common Carriers”, everyone would have access to the same high speed internet, regardless of what ISP they had, where they were, or what website they were on.
The US government has finally gotten itself involved with this issue, and has taken the side of those in favor of the Net Neutrality movement. President Obama gave a speech last November, in which he detailed that there should be no blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization, and said that there should be increased transparency and accountability in the ISP industry. He explained that “The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known,” and that the FCC has a duty to promote innovation and investment in such a network. |
Last Thursday, however, the White House released a statement detailing why there was no legislation needed for Net Neutrality. According to Reuters, a White House official explained that “…we don’t believe it’s necessary given that the FCC has the authorities that it needs under Title II [which is just another name for Common Carrier]."
So what’s going to happen with the future of an open and free internet? We can’t be entirely sure. Last year, Verizon successfully sued the FCC for trying to effect Net Neutrality. This seemed like a big loss for those involved with the movement. However, there were some positive outcomes and a few baby steps in the right direction. Forbes reports that:
“…the court ruled that the FCC does indeed have the authority to create open access rules – it just can’t apply them to services that it itself has said deserve to be categorized separately. The problem only arises because the FCC has defined broadband providers as exempt from being treated as common carriers. The simplest solution, therefore, would be for the FCC to change its definition of a common carrier to include broadband providers – something for which consumer groups are calling."
This basically means that the FCC has the power to change ISPs to Common Carriers; they would just have to overcome political and corporate dissent first.
-Ryan Sonntag, Contributing Writer
So what’s going to happen with the future of an open and free internet? We can’t be entirely sure. Last year, Verizon successfully sued the FCC for trying to effect Net Neutrality. This seemed like a big loss for those involved with the movement. However, there were some positive outcomes and a few baby steps in the right direction. Forbes reports that:
“…the court ruled that the FCC does indeed have the authority to create open access rules – it just can’t apply them to services that it itself has said deserve to be categorized separately. The problem only arises because the FCC has defined broadband providers as exempt from being treated as common carriers. The simplest solution, therefore, would be for the FCC to change its definition of a common carrier to include broadband providers – something for which consumer groups are calling."
This basically means that the FCC has the power to change ISPs to Common Carriers; they would just have to overcome political and corporate dissent first.
-Ryan Sonntag, Contributing Writer