On April 25, the FCC voted on a bipartisan basis to restore net neutrality. This is being portrayed by the current government as the best thing that could have happened or as just another mistake, depending on which speaker you listen to and which organization they represent. But what does all this really mean for regular people like us?
Android & Chill
Android & Chill, one of the longest-running tech columns on the Internet, is your Saturday discussion of Android, Google, and all things tech.
To figure it all out, you need to know what net neutrality is, its history, and how the US compares to the rest of the world when it comes to internet access and usage.
What is Net Neutrality?
In short, net neutrality means that all internet traffic is treated equally. It doesn’t matter where the data comes from or who it goes to; It flows over the Internet without any disruptions or restrictions. The New York government puts it this way:
Net neutrality refers to the principle that the companies that provide internet services to your home, business, and cell phone, such as: Some companies, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Charter (often referred to as Internet service providers, ISPs, or broadband providers), should not discriminate among content on the Internet. Under this principle, broadband providers cannot block, slow down or charge for prioritization of certain content; Rather, they must treat all content equally. This prevents your broadband provider from acting as a gatekeeper and blocking its competitors’ Internet content or applications, or playing favorites among competing services and vying for your attention.
For a more nuanced perspective, look back at a few years when service providers were battling with Netflix.
In 2013, Comcast asked Netflix to pay extra because so many subscribers were using the service. Netflix refused, so Comcast artificially throttled all Netflix streams using its network, making them unbearably slow.
As a consumer, you just noticed that Netflix was terrible, while other streaming platforms – like those from NBC (Comcast’s parent company) – were great. So instead of damaging its reputation, Netflix paid out the company.
When this happened, customers noticed a huge improvement in the quality of Netflix streaming almost immediately. Comcast hasn’t added any infrastructure to make this possible. it just allowed Netflix data is treated the same as any other data.
Because of net neutrality, it is illegal for Comcast to use these tactics against Netflix, and it is illegal for companies like Time Warner to use them against NBC because of the negative impact it has on consumers. Data is data, and service providers should simply be a pipeline to deliver that data.
That’s not automatically a bad thing. Comcast should Negotiate for more money from Netflix if it results in unfavorable network conditions. The problem lies with Comcast’s tactics because they have caused pain to consumers.
Opponents of net neutrality say unbiased traffic laws are unnecessary and that more transparency from service providers would allow customers to choose which provider is best for them.
That may be the case for some people, but not everyone has a choice when it comes to broadband providers. In many rural areas, the only choice is to pay the only provider that serves them or have no internet. And in some cases there is no choice at all.
How did we get here?
It’s easy to portray this as a battle of Obama vs. Trump vs. Biden, but in reality it all rests on the feet of the FCC.
The FCC’s attempt to provide guidance to service providers and a light hand in regulation over the years has been a good decision on paper. In reality it failed.
In 2005, the FCC classified service providers as information services rather than ordinary network operators such as telephone service providers. Let’s go back to 2010, when net neutrality was first introduced as the Open Internet Order and the ruling was immediately challenged by broadband providers.
The broadband providers have won. The most famous case is Verizon v. FCC, in which the DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the portions of the Open Internet Order that dealt with blocking or throttling certain Internet services. This is because the FCC only has the authority to enforce such measures if they apply to ordinary network operators and not to information services.
This was clarified when providers were reclassified as “common carriers” in 2015, and in 2017 the changes were reversed. Here, too, there were no restrictions for data providers.
A common carrier is a government-regulated company that provides a service without discrimination based on its content. In return, these companies are excluded from liability for the content they provide. You can’t sue the phone company because, for example, a criminal called another criminal and talked about committing crimes against you.
Airlines, railroads, and traditional taxi and transportation companies are common transportation providers. Some telecommunications services are classified as such, but data providers such as broadband ISPs are not.
Why this is important
With the recent ruling, broadband providers such as a traditional telephone company will be classified as a regular telecommunications service under Title II and will no longer be allowed to discriminate based on content.
This means that all data transfers are treated equally, regardless of where they come from, and that service providers are more likely to be fools who just transfer the content. The advantages of this decision are obvious: no company slows down your access to information or entertainment as a lever for making money. You paid the same for access when data transfer was intentionally slowed down. So that’s a win for consumers.
It’s also a win for education, veterans’ medical treatment, first responders’ readiness and for families living across the country or abroad, according to FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez.
Opponents like Commissioner Brendan Carr have a legitimate point of view. Don’t get distracted by the drama of blaming President Obama and comparing restoring Title II classification to student loan debt forgiveness. This has become the norm and is implemented to satisfy a small portion of voters. If you read the dissent, you’ll see that Carr says this will mean higher costs for consumers.
He’s right. The Comcasts and Verizons of the world will charge us more because they can’t extort money from Netflix or Amazon. The FCC is tasked with looking out for U.S. consumers, and a law that raises prices appears to work against that.
You could also say that the annual rate increases we pay for internet services and entertainment are because companies like Netflix and Amazon had to pay more to be treated equally, so it all evens out. All companies involved will pass the costs on to consumers whenever they can.
Each of us must form our own opinion on net neutrality. Each person who writes about this or does a newscast on this topic has their own opinion and their content will reflect this.
This article reflects my opinion that, based on my own circumstances, it is necessary to treat broadband data providers as a common provider. I rarely believe that government oversight is the best first step in solving a problem. Slow and bureaucratic decisions can and often do make the situation worse. In this case, I think it’s worth the risk.
You have your own circumstances and will make up your own mind.