Due to a ruling
(PDF) from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, so-called “net neutrality” seems to
be dead, for the time being. Depending on whom you ask, this means the end
of the Internet
as we know it, or it’s some great victory for private
property rights and free enterprise. Basically, the court ruled that the
FCC doesn’t have the authority to tell Comcast that it can’t throttle certain
types of traffic.
Here’s a little bit of background. “Net neutrality” has become something of a rallying cry for a lot of people. To many, it’s this…um…thing, and we don’t have it right now! And if we don’t get it soon, the Internet will explode and kill us all…or some other really bad thing will happen! WOOHOO NET NEUTRALITY! STICK IT TO THE MAN!
Sadly, the concept of net neutrality, among many people who claim to be its advocates, isn’t much more well-formed than that.
So, what is net neutrality? Basically, it’s the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn’t be allowed to restrict the bandwidth that they allocate to certain types of traffic, and allocate more bandwidth to the types of traffic they like. Currently, this type of restriction on the part of ISPs occurs on a very limited basis, in a way that the vast majority of users won’t notice. However, as more and more users begin using bandwidth-intensive services like voice over IP, videoconferencing, and streaming of high-definition video, ISPs have an increasing interest in controlling that traffic.
After all, bandwidth isn’t free, and it’s finite. ISPs claim that they simply want to put reasonable limits on such uses, to ensure that their other customers don’t get a diminished experience because a relatively small number of bandwidth hogs.
Supporters of net neutrality don’t buy this argument for a second, and claim that, if net neutrality is completely abolished, ISPs will be able (and are itching for the opportunity) to completely block certain types of content, and then charge users a premium price to access it. Want to stream Netflix movies to your TV? Right now, in order to do that, all you need to do is pay for a Netflix membership, a high-speed internet connection, and the necessary hardware. Without some form of net neutrality, its supporters argue, your ISP will be able to block traffic from Netflix completely, unless you pay them an additional fee.
So, you can see where this might lead: an Internet which is less open, more fragmented, and more expensive than it currently is.
In an attempt to prevent such a scenario from eventually coming to pass, the Federal Communications Commission told Comcast that it couldn’t discriminate against certain types of traffic. Comcast took its case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate ISPs in this manner.
Much like the Citizens United case that was decided a few months ago, this ruling has outraged some, pleased others, and confused everyone else, and, overnight, radically changed the ground rules in a very large and important arena. My reaction to this case is also similar to my reaction to Citizens United: it’s not the best thing to ever happen, but it’s not the end of the world, either.
I believe that, because ISPs invested a great deal of effort and money into creating and improving the infrastructure that allows for high-speed internet to exist, and, intuitively, it seems that they should have some right to control the data that passes through their facilities.
At the same time, people who have been using the Internet over the last 15 years have become quite accustomed to the current arrangement: you pay your ISP a monthly fee for an internet connection of a specified maximum speed (usually with the option to pay more for a faster connection), and you get to access whatever online content you want, without your ISP getting in the way. Basically, we think our ISPs should serve as neutral, invisible data conduits.
I see merit in both positions, and think that some middle ground could be reached. For example, perhaps ISPs could be allowed to de-prioritize, or slow down, certain types of data, but only to a limited extent. This would allow them to prioritize data, without outright blocking or unreasonably throttling any content.
However, thanks to this ruling, no middle ground can be reached, since the FCC now has almost no power to regulate ISPs. The only solution is for Congress to pass a law slightly expanding the FCC’s power in this arena.
Given how little the general public understands the debate behind net neutrality, and the polarized nature of legislative politics these days, this debate could easily turn into “Health care reform 2.0,” where misinformation and fear abound. I can see it now – Republican attack ads saying that Democrats are planning an Orwellian takeover of the Internet, and Democrats saying that Republicans want to give ISPs free reign to censor your emails, slow down your streaming video, make eyes at your daughters, and kick your dog. Oh my!
This should be fun.
Comments