Net Neutrality
By Bailey
Staff Writer
The issue of Net Neutrality has been gaining attention in mainstream media. If you've visited sites like Tumblr, Reddit, or Vimeo in the past few months, you may have noticed little spinning icons, made to look like a loading icon, in the corner of your screen. These websites, along with many others, are protesting the potential loss of Net Neutrality, the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all websites, data, apps, and other services equally. This is the way that the Internet generally works today. As long as the website is legal, your ISP gives you the same Internet speed to access any website, whether it's Wikipedia, Facebook, Netflix, or Amazon. This is much different from the way that we access television, where the specific channels you're able to watch depends on how much you pay your cable provider.
Net Neutrality is something we take for granted, but it has been threatened by ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, Time-Warner Cable, and Verizon. They would like to charge both content providers as well as Internet users to send and stream content more reliably and quickly. For example, Comcast might force Netflix to pay a premium to transmit their content to their customers via an Internet 'fast-lane,' and threaten to slow the Internet speeds of Comcast customers trying to access Netflix if the fee isn't paid. As a matter of fact, this is actually a really great example, because it has already happened. In autumn of 2013, Netflix download speeds began to decline, and then sharply rose up in February of 2014, when Netflix finally agreed to pay Comcast the premium fee.
So, one big corporation has to pay more money to another big corporation. What's the big deal? Well, there are two big reasons you should care. First, newer and smaller startups might not have the funds to pay multiple ISPs for reliable content access for their customers. This could (and probably would) lead to these small startups going out of business, since they can't compete with their larger competitors. Secondly, you would have to pay more to your content providers, like Netflix. Prices would increase, and if you weren't paying for a service before, you eventually would be. These price increases are understandable, since companies need to make a profit somehow, but knowing that they could be prevented is pretty frustrating.
Unfortunately, content providers wouldn't be the only ones paying more. Along with charging the content providers for faster, more reliable download speeds via Internet 'fast-lanes' for customers, ISPs also want to charge the customers themselves for—guess what—faster, more reliable download speeds, the same thing that content providers are already paying for. If you want to access the 'fast-lane,' in which content deliverers are providing media to consumers quickly (after paying the ISPs, of course), you'll have to pay your ISPs, too. This doesn't even mean a stronger, faster Internet connection to all websites; it only means a better connection to the sites that pay your ISP extra to deliver your content quicker.
These new services go against the principles of Net Neutrality. If Net Neutrality is abandoned, big corporations will get the upper hand in providing content. It could become extremely difficult, or even impossible, to access websites that your ISP doesn't want you to.
To uphold the principles of Net Neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed rules that would ban Internet fast-lanes, as well as the slowing down and blocking of websites who do not pay a premium to ISPs. This would be done by reclassifying ISPs as 'common carriers,' similar to telephone service providers, under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which bans "unjust or unreasonable discrimination" in providing telephone services. This is exactly what so many Internet users want, an open Internet free from unjust or unreasonable discrimination.
The vast majority those who criticize the new Net Neutrality proposals by the FCC are Internet service providers themselves. They want to make as much money as possible, and they're aware that they won't be able to if the FCC follows through with its proposal. The future of how the Internet is accessed by millions of people now lies in the hands of politicians, who are set to vote on the FCC's Net Neutrality proposals by the end of February.
The Internet has been open to the public since 1988, and has maintained its neutrality until now. Internet service providers shouldn't have the power to decide which websites its customers can and cannot visit, or gain a monopoly by stifling the growth of budding content providers. Net Neutrality and the open Internet needs to be defended, and if the FCC is willing to do that, I'm on board with them.
Citations:
Barr, Alistair. "Google Strikes an Upbeat Note With FCC on Title II." Wall Street Journal. Dow ​
Berkman, Frank. "Title II Is the Key to Net Neutrality-so What Is It?" The Daily Dot. The Daily
Clement, Candace. "Why Title II Reclassification for Net Neutrality Is the Biggest Deal Ever."
Dot, LLC, 20 May 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.
Ehrenfreund, Max. "This Hilarious Graph of Netflix Speeds Shows the Importance of Net
Free Press. Free Press Action Fund, 4 Feb. 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.
Goodman, Amy, and Juan Gonzáles. "FCC." Democracy Now! Democracy Now!, 6 Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Feb. 2015
Internet." Deadline. Penske Media Corporation, 14 May 2014. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.
Jones & Company, Inc., 31 Dec. 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.
Lieberman, David. "Comcast Exec Says FCC Still Can't Enforce Net Neutrality If It Reclassifies
Neutrality." Know More. Washington Post, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.