It seems more than ever that the issue of net neutrality has been thrust into the spotlight over the past few months.
In light of the second lawsuit filed against the FCC’s new open Internet order, people are questioning net neutrality.
Currently we connect to the Internet through pipes and cables owned by cable and Internet services like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon. But as of right now these companies are not allowed to mess with what is accessed within these pipes.
This creates an Internet where everyone gets the same speed and quality to whatever site they wish to visit; however, Internet providers wish to create “fast lanes” where they give priority to web pages of companies that have paid them large sums of money. That would force sites that were not able to or did not pay these Internet providers into a slower lane.
Some providers want to go as far as to block certain sites of their competition, which is what we are seeing currently in the war between Comcast and Netflix. Comcast late last year threatened to cut off Level 3, the service that streams Netflix movies, if they did not pay an excessive levy.
Net neutrality would stop this sort of iron-fisted monopoly that Comcast is trying to create. But this is not the only example of Comcast abusing their power.
Timothy Karr of the Huffington Post reported that after a customer was unable to make changes to his Comcast account, he altered his modem in order to “actually receive the services he was being charged for.” After his experience the customer wrote a blog detailing the event. To which Comcast responded by demanding that the blog be deleted and the site censor itself.
Online-activist Phil Dampier responded saying, “When cable giants like Comcast trample all over free speech (and their paying customers), it teaches a valuable lesson [about] why giving them a chance to grow even larger through a merger with NBC-Universal is a dangerous mistake.”
Without net neutrality Internet innovation will become a thing of the past.
The FCC’s open Internet order does stop Internet providers from blocking legal sites for any reason; however, it does allow providers to charge sites and provide them with faster access.
The decision has brought criticism from the left where people argue that the FCC did not go far enough with mobile web, which is pretty much lawless at this point.
It has also brought criticism from the right where they argue that it’s just another excuse to expand federal power.
Barack Obama reacted to the ruling saying, “Today’s decision will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech. Throughout this process, parties on all sides of this issue – from consumer groups to technology companies to broadband providers – came together to make their voices heard. This decision is an important component of our overall strategy to advance American innovation, economic growth, and job creation.
As a candidate for president, I pledged to preserve the freedom and openness that have allowed the Internet to become a transformative and powerful platform for speech and expression. That’s a pledge I’ll continue to keep as President. As technology and the market continue to evolve at a rapid pace, my administration will remain vigilant and see to it that innovation is allowed to flourish, that consumers are protected from abuse, and that the democratic spirit of the Internet remains intact.”
President Obama has been a champion of net neutrality because he realizes the importance of people creating companies like Google and Facebook, which is already hard enough without having to fork out more money just to make it onto the web.
Republicans, on the other hand, refuse to see the hypocrisy ring in their denouncement of the FCC’s ruling and their cry for innovation and job creation. In the world of technology, an open Internet is how the latter happens.
Michael Patrick is a junior majoring in political science. His column runs biweekly on Thursdays.
