On April 23, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said "that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers." (NY Times) Many people, including myself, see this as blatant violation of net neutrality principles. For example, former FCC commissioner Michael Copps, Sen. Al Franken, and Sen. Cory Booker are concerned about the proposed rules. Senator Bernie Sanders said, "Under this terribly misguided proposal, the Internet as we have come to know it would cease to exist and the average American would be the big loser."
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler denies that the proposed rules would gut net neutrality. But as Sean Hollister of The Verge says:
The problem, which Wheeler's statement doesn't refute, is that the FCC intends to say that it's okay to discriminate against traffic if content providers don't pay the ISPs a "commercially reasonable" fee. While the FCC chairman says that "behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted," any fee might risk harming both, even if it's tiny.How did we get here? Why is the FCC proposing new rules anyway? Let's take a step back to explain the situation.
A Quick History of Net Neutrality in the US
Since the beginning of the Internet, ISPs have been net neutral. Data was data, ISPs didn't discriminate against different types of traffic, and any small personal website could be accessed as quickly as a large corporation's website. However, more recently ISPs have occasionally blocked or throttled different websites and types of traffic for various reasons. The recent deal between Netflix and Comcast, was definitely a money grab by Comcast that was arguably non-net neutral.
The FCC, which regulates things like TV and radio, occasionally punished ISPs that violated net neutrality by fining them. However, in January a federal appeals court stated that the FCC technically didn't have the authority to regulate ISPs. The FCC classifies broadband Internet as an "information service," which limits the FCC's power to regulate broadband ISPs. Instead of reclassifying broadband Internet as a "telecommunications service"--which would give the FCC more power to regulate them--or appealing the court's decision, Wheeler has decided to rewrite its net neutrality rules.
It now appears that the new rules are not net neutral, throwing the Internet into jeopardy for all Americans.
What Could Happen
I, along with others, have always suspected that if and when ISPs try to kill net neutrality, it would be by charging users for access or for speedy access to certain types of Internet content. For example, Time Warner Cable might charge Internet subscribers an extra $3 per month to access netflix.com.
That isn't how it's happening. Instead, ISPs are charging the websites for access to subscribers. First, AT&T announces "Sponsored Data", which sounds nice but is just a way to block certain websites once a subscriber's data cap is reached. As Nilay Patel from The Verge says, "that's not fair competition, that's just pay to play." Next, Comcast throttles Netflix data unless Netflix agrees to pay up. Now, the FCC announces new rules that imply that this is just the beginning.
In the future, ISPs may charge all websites a fee for access to their users, possibly in speed tiers. Websites and services that don't pay up will be unreachable by users. This may sound like perfectly fine, net-neutral behavior to some, like FCC Chair Wheeler, because users cannot pay a fee to get access to these websites. However, the result is the same: small websites for small businesses, small organizations and non-wealthy individuals will have less of a chance of being seen than large websites run by corporations that can afford these new Internet tolls.
(This is also a reason to oppose the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger. While the two companies do not compete for ISP customers because they are in different markets, they will compete for content provider customers. For example, if Netflix opted not to pay Comcast a fee for normal streaming speeds, they'd only be throttled for half of the country's broadband users. After the merger they'd be throttled for the whole country. Comcast will control most American's access to fast Internet and can charge content providers whatever they want.)
Why Is the FCC Trying to Kill Net Neutrality?
Why is this happening? It's hard to say for sure. Obama promised net neutrality laws. Then he strangely nominated Tom Wheeler for FCC Chair. Wheeler, who lobbied to deregulate the cable industry in the 80's, and lobbied for the wireless industry later. He supported the T-Mobile and AT&T merger that thankfully failed. But, when appointed, Wheeler said, "we're pro-open networks," giving hope to net neutrality supporters everywhere. It appears that hope was misplaced.
Obama's nomination of Wheeler doesn't make much sense, but Wheeler's support for deregulation and supporting huge, oligopolistic corporations--especially the wireless telecoms--is well-established. Wheeler is just supporting his friends and ex-coworkers.
What Can We Do?
We can still save the Internet. Contact your representative, your senators, and FCC Chair Tom Wheeler (tom.wheeler@fcc.gov) and tell them to oppose any new FCC rules that aren't net neutral. Tell them to get the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as "telecommunications services" instead of "information services" so that the FCC can continue using net neutral rules already in place. If enough people make their voice heard, we can keep the Internet free and open.
