With the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) approval of the net neutrality policy yesterday, there has been much commotion about what this means. Many sources, including the ACLU, are ecstatic, claiming a victory for free speech and preservation of internet accessibility for all. Others, mainly (and surprisingly) Republicans are appalled, claiming the FCC is “turning its back on Internet freedom.” Even Forbes claims, “Sooner or later, under FCC regulation of the Internet, there will be ‘regulatory capture’ . . . Who knows how many would-be startups that might have become the next Facebook or Twitter may be strangled in their cribs by FCC regulators?”
Contrary to the claim by Forbes, the effect of net neutrality will be the exact opposite. The primary purpose of net neutrality is to prevent the major cable companies from controlling the accessibility of the internet. The problem arose when internet service providers, such as Comcast, discovered an ability to offer its internet speed in a discriminatory fashion. In other words, the service provider would offer a faster service to websites willing to fork out the cash. For companies like Netflix, it wouldn’t be hard to come up with the cash, but startup websites certainly wouldn’t be able to do so. The end result is that websites who either couldn’t or refuse to fork out the cash would be limited to incredibly slow internet service when accessed by consumers of the service providers; and it’s safe to say we all know how quickly visitors would run from a slow website.
If you recall the last time the FCC tried to protect “Open Internet” rules in 2010, Verizon sued and won, with the DC Circuit holding that the FCC did not have sufficient regulatory power over broadband. Now, internet service providers are being treated as carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications act which was signed into law in 1934 by Franklin D. Roosevelt and regulates services as public utilities. Although net neutrality is a major victory for internet consumers and future online start-up websites, you can expect major cable companies to be following in Verizon’s 2010 footsteps early this summer.
Comcast has stated: “We fully embrace the open Internet principles that have been laid out by President Obama and Chairman Wheeler and that now have been adopted by the FCC. We just don’t believe statutory provisions designed for the telephone industry and adopted when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president should be stretched to govern the 21st century Internet.” Nice try, Comcast. This has nothing to do with statutory provisions from 1934 governing public utilities applying to the modern internet, but more to do with your resulting loss of cash flow due to a statutory prohibition on providing your services in a discriminatory manner.
Verizon took a much more childish approach. It decided to provide its press release statement in Morse code with a link to a translation for “[r]eaders in the 21st century” which is dated February 26, 1934. AT&T was a little more reserved, providing, “[W]e look forward to carefully reviewing the details of the FCC’s order before we can fully understand all of its implications.”
On the other side of the debate, the Free Press flew this banner over Comcast's headquarters:
Contrary to the claim by Forbes, the effect of net neutrality will be the exact opposite. The primary purpose of net neutrality is to prevent the major cable companies from controlling the accessibility of the internet. The problem arose when internet service providers, such as Comcast, discovered an ability to offer its internet speed in a discriminatory fashion. In other words, the service provider would offer a faster service to websites willing to fork out the cash. For companies like Netflix, it wouldn’t be hard to come up with the cash, but startup websites certainly wouldn’t be able to do so. The end result is that websites who either couldn’t or refuse to fork out the cash would be limited to incredibly slow internet service when accessed by consumers of the service providers; and it’s safe to say we all know how quickly visitors would run from a slow website.
If you recall the last time the FCC tried to protect “Open Internet” rules in 2010, Verizon sued and won, with the DC Circuit holding that the FCC did not have sufficient regulatory power over broadband. Now, internet service providers are being treated as carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications act which was signed into law in 1934 by Franklin D. Roosevelt and regulates services as public utilities. Although net neutrality is a major victory for internet consumers and future online start-up websites, you can expect major cable companies to be following in Verizon’s 2010 footsteps early this summer.
Comcast has stated: “We fully embrace the open Internet principles that have been laid out by President Obama and Chairman Wheeler and that now have been adopted by the FCC. We just don’t believe statutory provisions designed for the telephone industry and adopted when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president should be stretched to govern the 21st century Internet.” Nice try, Comcast. This has nothing to do with statutory provisions from 1934 governing public utilities applying to the modern internet, but more to do with your resulting loss of cash flow due to a statutory prohibition on providing your services in a discriminatory manner.
Verizon took a much more childish approach. It decided to provide its press release statement in Morse code with a link to a translation for “[r]eaders in the 21st century” which is dated February 26, 1934. AT&T was a little more reserved, providing, “[W]e look forward to carefully reviewing the details of the FCC’s order before we can fully understand all of its implications.”
On the other side of the debate, the Free Press flew this banner over Comcast's headquarters: