Net Neutrality took a major hit last month when a federal judge ruled against new FCC-proposed regulations for internet service providers. The basic gist of the new laws would prohibit ISPs from altering, interfering, throttling, or censoring websites and content at their discretion. Watch the video below for a basic explanation for the need to have net neutrality laws:
But aren’t there already laws similar to net neutrality that protect telecom consumers? Yes there are. The FCC labels telecoms and phone service providers as “common carriers,” and there are consumer protections enforced on these “common carriers.” But under the George W. Bush FCC administration, internet service providers were labeled as “information services,” not “common carriers.” And so they received different, less stringent regulations. The Obama FCC administration has now been attempting to enforce tighter regulations, and this latest ruling has had a major blow on these efforts.
Opponents to net neutrality have argued that even if given the freedom to provide this suggested "selective" service, that carriers and ISPs would not likely pursue such actions in order to stay competitive with other ISPs. The problem, besides the fact that there is evidence that shows Verizon has already begun throttling users since the federal judge’s ruling, is that the “competition” isn’t nearly as stiff as the federal government claims. The judge cited the infantile Google Fiber service, which has only been rolled out in small areas in Kansas City, KS and Provo, UT, as a main reason for rejecting the FCC proposal. His claim is that with this new Fiber service, consumers do indeed have a choice and power in the market. But in reality, this service is very new and Google has been taking their sweet time setting it up, while meanwhile, millions of internet users still have little to no buyer bargaining power.
Of course, I am all for net neutrality. But I’m a libertarian, so it feels a little strange to be so in favor of massive federal regulations. Let me explain why this is important to me. In the past 20 years, the internet has evolved from a small project amongst academics and universities, and become one of our most vital pieces of infrastructure. Financial systems, communications, entertainment, marketing, product retailing…. I could go on and on about what we rely on the internet for and how important a non-censored and unaltered internet is for our society. Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast, and other ISPs have agreed that they want to be in the business of providing us these internet services. But since the internet is so vital for what seems like just about every corner of civilization, these companies should absolutely not be allowed to alter our experience or internet capabilities in any way. This isn’t like telling a local tavern they can’t allow people to smoke inside, a regulation I’m staunchly opposed to. Nobody needs to go to that tavern, bars are not vital to the function of our society like the internet, and consumers do indeed have other options for that. But if we are going to let these companies sell us internet service, they need to do it on our terms.
1. Drum, Kevin. "Net Neutrality Takes a Big Hit in Court." Mother Jones. N.p., 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 14 Feb. 2014.
2. Lilly, Paul. "Verizon Allegedly Already Throttling Customers After Net Neutrality Ruling." HotHardware Computing and Tech News. N.p., 9 Feb. 2014. Web. 14 Feb. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment