Putting Net Neutrality Ruling Into PerspectivePutting Net Neutrality Ruling Into Perspective
Despite the FCC's recent ruling, Net neutrality is far from a given. Here's what you need to know.
March 13, 2015
Despite the FCC's recent ruling, Net neutrality is far from a given. Here's what you need to know.
ISPs and other providers behave like they exclusively own the Internet and that the Internet is not a public utility. This is not a new attitude -- back in the 1960s, AT&T behaved similarly, prohibiting the attachment of non-AT&T modems to the PSTN. The courts and the FCC stepped in, forcing PSTN openness.
As has been widely discussed here on No Jitter and elsewhere, late last month the FCC ruled that Internet providers will now be governed as Title II entities. The ruling, released in full yesterday, will go into effect once officially posted in the Federal Register. That is expected to occur in 2Q15, but some technical points may need fine-tuning.
Once the ruling takes effect, you can expect legal challenges. You also can expect challenges from members of Congress who follow the ideology that government should keep out of business operations. They'll argue, "Let the market handle it." Nobody knows how this will eventually turn out, but let's be sure to understand what's what for now.
What Does Title II Mean?
Net neutrality has won at the FCC in a 3-to-2 vote. The FCC established an Open Internet Order that proposes to implement strict Net neutrality rules. Among other stipulations, the new rules prohibit site and application blocking, speed throttling, and paid fast lanes. The FCC plans on accomplishing this by reclassifying the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act, thus turning ISPs into telecom service utilities. Title II provides the FCC the tools it needs to enforce the strict rules affecting wired and wireless Internet connections.
What Reclassification Covers
The FCC's order aims to implement three new rules:
ISPs cannot block access to any lawful content or device.
ISPs are not allowed to impair or degrade connectivity on the basis f content or paid prioritization.
ISPs may not create "fast lanes" that offer higher speeds to some providers and not others in exchange for consideration of any kind.
ISPs cannot block access to any lawful content or device.
ISPs are not allowed to impair or degrade connectivity on the basis f content or paid prioritization.
ISPs may not create "fast lanes" that offer higher speeds to some providers and not others in exchange for consideration of any kind.
The FCC has stated that the new rules will not subject ISPs or mobile operators to unbundling. The ruling is neither meant to generate nor create last-mile unbundling.
Internet Freedom Act
Already, U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has filed legislation -- the so-called Internet Freedom Act -- that would stop the Net neutrality rules from taking effect. "My legislation will put the brakes on this FCC overreach and protect our innovators from job killing regulations," stated Blackburn, who is vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and, it should be noted, has received campaign contributions from some of the companies against the FCC's ruling.
The legislation has 31 Republican co-sponsors. If this bill passes, Net neutrality rules would not exist at all -- not even the weak ones in place now.
What Does Not Change
Do not expect any real changes if the rules are enforced. If the rules are not enforced, then expect changes to occur unevenly. Some sites will be slower, and some charges for mobile data may change. With the rules in force:
Broadband connections will not be faster.
The wireless data cap will still exist. Customers will still need to monitor their data usage.
Wireless providers can still throttle your speed once you reach your data cap. This is OK if the provider slows down all users without discrimination.
Competition will not be any greater or more diverse.
ISP merger-and-acquisition activity will continue as usual.
Broadband connections will not be faster.
The wireless data cap will still exist. Customers will still need to monitor their data usage.
Wireless providers can still throttle your speed once you reach your data cap. This is OK if the provider slows down all users without discrimination.
Competition will not be any greater or more diverse.
ISP merger-and-acquisition activity will continue as usual.
What the FCC Says
Take a look at the FCC post, "Open Internet," for a variety of background information, documents, and other resources. But for now, I'll leave you with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's explanation on why he ruled as he has:
The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.
This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.
The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.
This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.
This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.
Read more on Net neutrality:
