Net neutrality is a principle that advocates for government regulation of internet service providers to avoid website discrimination based on influence and remain impartial to the content we all enjoy — even the most obscure, hipster, random websites in the interweb.
We often forget the internet is actually run by a handful of telecommunications companies like Verizon and Time Warner.
Small online businesses and some internet titans are known advocates of net neutrality — "not evil" Google is for ... or against ... not sure at this point ... it.
But why is government regulation actually a good thing to have online? Because ISP companies are greedy and without regulation (net neutrality) nothing stops them from deciding that for you to access certain websites, you have to pay a little extra, not much, say ... $1 every time you want to access Facebook. Or, perhaps if you don't want to pay extra, the internet speed to access those websites will be slower than when you access Verizon's main page. Yep. It is possible.
NetworkWorld recently published an article presenting the other side of the issue. Forget the fact that they published what is more of an opinion piece with some he/she said's here and there in their "news" section ... with no real arguments from the FCC side.
The author writes:
"It doesn't make sense for the FCC to maintain monopoly-inspired regulations on telecom-based broadband carriers when there's healthy competition from mobile broadband, satellite broadband and other providers, said Robert Litan, director of research at Bloomberg Government and co-author of an upcoming book on broadband policy."
A discussion was held at Brookings Institution on recommendations made by Litan and Hal Singer, managing director and principal of Navigant Economics for FCC to move to passing rules only after the evidence of a problem in the broadband market."
James Cicconi, who participated in the discussion said:
"Panelist James Cicconi, AT&T's senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, targeted the FCC's 2010 net neutrality order as an example of regulation without major evidence of a problem."
But here is the evidence. As very well put by Michele Combs, vice president of communication of the Christian Coalition of America, there have already been explicit instances in which ISP's have used their power to censor websites or content online. Verizon Wireless and AT&T both blocked political speech in 2007. And Comcast blocked access to users ability to access the Bible that same year.
Most recently, with the release of the iPhone 5 on the U.S. AT&T, users were told they couldn't use the built-in FaceTime feature over 3G, even when such usage fell within the constraints of their data allowance. Being selective toward certain services allows them to promote rival services with whom the carriers have contracts or agreements.
Yesterday, top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a briefing to discuss Verizon's legal challenge to the Federal Commission's net neutrality rules.
At the meeting, Verizon argued:
“'Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others,' Verizon and MetroPCS attorneys argued in a joint brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
FCC Chairman Reed Hundt responded:
“'This idea that the Internet can be closed, or blocked, or managed by private parties is the exact opposite of America’s foreign policy,' Hundt said, pointing to the Obama administration's Internet freedom advocacy. 'The Internet is a common medium.'
"Hundt dismissed Verizon’s view that it is somehow similar to a newspaper. “Verizon is like paper, not a newspaper,” he said."
At these point these meetings are only that, meetings. The FCC net neutrality rules took effect last year, and Verizon's challenge will not be reviewed until next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment