Freedom of Internet
By Perry Bolick
Today’s world is increasingly dependant on the
Internet. The rise of the Internet of Things, or the
interconnection of devices and household objects to
each other, is just one example of the market’s
growing need for more bandwidth and faster speeds.
New technology and massive gains in Internet literacy
have completely changed the broadband, or Internet
service, industry in the last five years. This change has
been especially evident in the years since the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the
Communications Act of 1934 were first passed. This historic legislation created the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, in 1934 to regulate telephone monopolies and manage licensing for the spectrum used for broadcasting. The history of these acts and current events are critical in understanding today’s net neutrality debate, so this will attempt to break the complex issues down.
What is the net neutrality about?
Net neutrality has been a political buzzword over the past year after two rules from the FCC’s Open Internet Order, established in 2010, were challenged in the courts last January. Basically, the FCC said ISPs, or Internet service providers, must be transparent with their services and can not block or unreasonably discriminate against parts of the Internet. On January 14, 2014, the courts upheld the transparency rule, but shot down the no-blocking and no-unreasonable-discrimination rules. The FCC then had to go back to the drawing board to protect an “open” Internet, and the public has been allowed to comment on new rule proposals since May.
Why is this a problem?
These rules protected against Internet providers, like Comcast, from charging data heavy websites, like Netflix, extra to provide the speeds needed to reach their massive consumer base effectively. They also prevented these providers from blocking users from accessing lawful web services, like Skype, that compete with many of the providers’ in-house phone or cable services.
What are our options?
Net neutrality proponents are demanding the FCC reclassify broadband as a utility-like common carrier, sometimes called Title II, instead of the current classification of an information service. This authority was given to the FCC in the Communications Act of 1934 and would likely stand in court but it comes with a cost. The Internet would then be highly regulated by the federal government like the energy industry and interstate system. The GOP disagrees with this approach, as it gives the government control over the Internet and would be subject to cronyism and bureaucratic inefficiencies. The GOP, however, has not offered an airtight solution. They would like to use legislature to protect Internet “openness” and remove some of the FCC’s power. This strategy also falls short of a solution because of the volatility of politics and the fluidity of change in Internet technology.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
Three important, yet commonly overlooked, points must be recognized before viable solutions can be created. First, distinction between providers of telecommunications services and information services must be made. A “telecommunications carrier” is only classified as such when selling phone or cable services but not when it is selling broadband Internet access. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 enforces regulations against “telecommunications carriers” but not carriers providing information services, which is why the January ruling stands. Second, wireless broadband is also regulated by the FCC through licensing spectrum. Many of the same information carriers also utilize wireless broadband so they are regulated by the FCC in multiple ways, which adds complications. Third, large Internet content companies, like Google, are using a new method in collaboration with ISPs called peering. Content delivery networks are being set up inside providers’ own networks to beef up connections and speeds to popular sites through this method, which muddies the line between “fast-lanes” and necessary infrastructure.
So what are we left with now?
These complexities add to the chaos. There is no simple solution for correcting the onslaught of ISP abuses, but this discussion needs to be deeper than deciding between overregulation and volatile legislation. If the FCC is able to hold its own and provide legal basis for reinstating the no-blocking and no-unreasonable-discrimination rules using the other pieces of the 1996 Act and without invoking common-carrier utility classification when it releases its decision on February 26th, then we will have put a bandaid on the problem. In this case, however, it might be the best option since the Internet industry changes so quickly.
Competition seems to be catching up as just recently Google announced that its own heavily praised Fiber service is coming to Atlanta, Charlotte, the Research Triangle, and Nashville. Perhaps this temporary fix for the FCC will hold until more services like Fiber catch up and keep ISPs in check, though America’s favorite regulation: competition.
