The End of Net Neutrality
Published in La Razón
(Spain) on 5 February 2015
by Ángel Valle (link to original)
(Spain) on 5 February 2015
by Ángel Valle (link to original)
Translated from
by Álvaro Rodríguez.
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
The Federal Communications Commission has arranged a very important event for next February 26th. This independent U.S. government agency, which is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, will hold a net neutrality vote on February 26th. This new proposal may change the Internet in the U.S. and, eventually, in the rest of the world. A fundamental principle of the Internet is that all Internet content should be treated equally; that is, all providers have to deliver it at the same speed all over the world. It is, therefore, implied that legal content cannot be discriminated and users are entitled to access whatever and whenever they want.
However, this principle is in danger now. It all started last year, when Verizon, one of the most important American broadband and telecommunications companies, filed suit against the FCC’s net neutrality policies and won the court ruling. Thus the FCC proposed new net neutrality rules favoring big Internet service providers’ interests, which opened the doors to the so-called “Two-Speed Internet.” Under these regulations, Internet service providers can give preference to the content of the largest websites, such as YouTube, Netflix …
Since then, there has been a long discussion in the U.S. between those for these regulations — big companies — and those against them, who want to keep net neutrality. The turning point was the letter that Obama sent to the FCC last November. He thereby requested the FCC not to allow Internet service providers to give preference to some content over other. While Obama’s “request” does not compel the FCC to comply with it, there is no doubt that his letter will play a role in its decision.
The FCC will hold a net neutrality vote on February 26th after several delays. Initially, it was meant just for ratifying the decision in favor of Verizon. However, this is no longer what the vote is going to be about because of pressure applied by many users, organizations and politicians for net neutrality. It is clear, though, that it is hard to return to the former complete-net-neutrality principle, since the big Internet service providers consider it impossible to treat equally all content given the continuous growth of the broadband. Yet, it might be possible that some restrictions to discrimination are set in order to find a half-way solution.
So, in one way or another, the U.S. will give the green light to the two-speed Internet, where the large content producers will be given preference over others — that is, those unable or unwilling to pay for it. The latter will therefore have to use secondary channels. In fact, companies like Netflix, one of the most important audiovisual content producers on the net, has already agreed for its content to benefit from the best transfer speed, in return for regular payments. While it is supposed to concern the U.S., the domino effect will eventually reach the whole world.
However, this principle is in danger now. It all started last year, when Verizon, one of the most important American broadband and telecommunications companies, filed suit against the FCC’s net neutrality policies and won the court ruling. Thus the FCC proposed new net neutrality rules favoring big Internet service providers’ interests, which opened the doors to the so-called “Two-Speed Internet.” Under these regulations, Internet service providers can give preference to the content of the largest websites, such as YouTube, Netflix …
Since then, there has been a long discussion in the U.S. between those for these regulations — big companies — and those against them, who want to keep net neutrality. The turning point was the letter that Obama sent to the FCC last November. He thereby requested the FCC not to allow Internet service providers to give preference to some content over other. While Obama’s “request” does not compel the FCC to comply with it, there is no doubt that his letter will play a role in its decision.
The FCC will hold a net neutrality vote on February 26th after several delays. Initially, it was meant just for ratifying the decision in favor of Verizon. However, this is no longer what the vote is going to be about because of pressure applied by many users, organizations and politicians for net neutrality. It is clear, though, that it is hard to return to the former complete-net-neutrality principle, since the big Internet service providers consider it impossible to treat equally all content given the continuous growth of the broadband. Yet, it might be possible that some restrictions to discrimination are set in order to find a half-way solution.
So, in one way or another, the U.S. will give the green light to the two-speed Internet, where the large content producers will be given preference over others — that is, those unable or unwilling to pay for it. The latter will therefore have to use secondary channels. In fact, companies like Netflix, one of the most important audiovisual content producers on the net, has already agreed for its content to benefit from the best transfer speed, in return for regular payments. While it is supposed to concern the U.S., the domino effect will eventually reach the whole world.
You have things exactly backwards. The FCC will vote to keep “net neutrality” exactly as it is now by slightly broadening its regulatory powers to keep it so. There is of course the judicial system in the U.S. where the “rule of law” prevails against all else. It is ultimately up the courts, while hearing counter arguments from those like Verizon who challenge net neutrality, whether the new broader regulation to keep net neutrality is in conformance with U.S. law.