Field GuidesA Field Guide to Net NeutralityGina Vaynshteyn

Before I read about net neutrality and rules that every provider must essentially follow, I thought the Internet was just this wild thing that nobody could control, like the Tasmanian Devil, only way more abstract and filled with weird and time-consuming K-holes. Basically, providers like Verizon are trying to control bandwidth, which eliminates the concept of net neutrality. So, those weird and time-consuming K-holes? Yeah, they might cease to exist someday. The Internet, in its flawed but free state, might be in trouble.

download

First of all, let’s talk about what “net neutrality” means.

Net neutrality is the philosophy that all Internet data is to be treated equally by Internet providers, such as Cox, AT&T, Time Warner, and Verizon. It means, no matter what (even if it is competing with AT&T’s communication services), the provider cannot block traffic to any kind of website, platform, application, etc. So, with net neutrality, I should be able to log on to my Gmail account, Skype with friends, listen to music on Pandora, and binge watch Orange is the New Black on Netflix with no problems whatsoever. Each of these websites should load at the same speed.  This sounds good, right? That’s because up until recently, everyone has been playing by the Open Internet rules.

What are the Open Internet rules?

The FCC created regulations that are meant to make sure that broadband service providers (like Verizon) keep the Internet open and don’t block access to certain parts of it that may…interfere with their business.

The three main Open Internet rules ensure that all providers must be honest with how they deal with Internet traffic, prohibit broadband operators from blocking legal content on their networks, and disallow “unreasonable discrimination against traffic on their networks” (Cnet).

Basically, these rules protect all that is the Internet and its glory.

This could possibly change though as of last Tuesday. 

Right after the FCC started implementing these rules, Verizon began to challenge them, arguing that “the FCC had no authority from Congress to impose such rules and that the rules stymied its First Amendment rights.” If big corporations can’t have the Internet, than NOBODY CAN!

On Tuesday, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that the FCC based its three rules on a “flawed legal argument” and that it shouldn’t have power over broadband providers. Since the FCC treats broadband providers differently than telecommunications providers, it can’t use rules that pertain to both. I’ll explain what this means shortly.

Verizon says that they should not be considered a “common carrier”.

A “common carrier” is a company that offers its services to the general public while under constrictions by regulatory agency. So, because these companies (such as  Verizon or Comcast) own wires that run through public and private land, the FCC wants them to be under the same constrictions as an electric company, a phone company, or anyone else using public land for their own monetary gain. The FCC essentially considered Internet providers to be in the same utility camp. Verizon is fighting this, saying that they shouldn’t be lumped under the same “common carrier” constrictions because they don’t provide a “necessary” public service. Even though most of us would probably argue that the Internet is super necessary, am I right?

However, the FCC lost, because the court decided in favor of Verizon for this argument. This doesn’t mean that the court disagrees with the FCC’s views of regulation, they just don’t think Verizon falls into the “common carrier” laws that apply to telephones and electric companies.

What exactly does Verizon want?

The problem that all of these internet providers are dealing with is that there is a limited amount of bandwidth for a growing multitude that is using more and more data. Think Netflix. Think music downloading. All of that sucks up a lot of bandwidth. The cable companies want to regulate how this bandwidth is shared amongst its customers. The companies that use more (Netflix, Hulu, Bittorrent) should get charged more (according to Verizon).

The possible outcomes:

  • Smaller websites or start-ups would never be able to afford the bandwidth in order to compete with the larger companies. The general public would essentially be censored from these sites and they would run super slow anyway.
  • Large companies like Netflix would face an increase in bandwidth fees and would pass this cost down to its customers.
  • Maybe nothing will change for the end-user (us) and Verizon will us its new-found profits to improve its services for everyone (which is what they’re saying they’ll do). 
      1 2Continue reading... →
comments

Please help us maintain positive conversations by refraining from posting spam, advertisements, and links to other websites or blogs. we reserve the right to remove your comment if it does not adhere to these guidelines. thanks! post a comment.

  1. How come has no one commented on this?! I hope the FCC steps up and supports net neutrality! This sounds as crazy as the time when providers wanted to charge for email. Hopefully this bandwidth issue will turn out the same way; in favor the customer.