President Barack Obama’s recent call for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on Internet providers has generated another wave of media buzz and political debate about net neutrality.
But understanding what the facts are beyond all the Twitter talk and Facebook furor – and the 3 million comments sent to the FCC – takes a bit of work. Here’s some help.
The bottom-line of net neutrality is that all Internet traffic should be treated equally regardless of site, platform or mode of communication.
All users access the Internet by subscribing to a residential broadband or wireless service from companies like Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T.
Net neutrality advocates say that Internet service providers shouldn’t be allowed to pick favorites by downgrading access for certain websites while giving others a fast lane for an extra fee, so the government should create regulations ensuring equal access.
Opponents, including many of the providers, say regulation would stifle innovation and that service to all wouldn’t be downgraded, but those who pay extra would get better service.
Bad news for truth-seekers: we can’t predict whether service would remain the same or be downgraded in either case.
But there are some circulating myths that can be busted.
1. Myth: An “open” and “neutral” Internet are basically the same thing.
Reality: Openness (access) is different from net neutrality (quality of access for everyone).
Experts say that this is an important distinction people are missing. The Internet has always been “open” because anyone can use it for any application. But how is that different from neutrality?
The net neutrality debate is not about who has access or not, but about whether everyone should have equal quality of access.
A quick history lesson: Companies had to build separate, new networks from the ground up for traditional telephone and cable TV services. That’s why the Internet was revolutionary- one network that lets users listen, watch, call, do it all.
The term “net neutrality” was coined by Columbia law professor Tim Wu 11 years ago, when the Internet faced much simpler tasks. But now, in an age when consumers demand to surf the web, Skype and watch Netflix simultaneously, Internet service providers must recognize such applications’ new needs and adapt accordingly, which they remind us costs money.
“The Internet was designed in such a way that it can be all things to all people, but the networks need to adapt to the requirements of the things that people are doing on them,” said Richard Bennett, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
“Neutral means being blind to the requirements that these diverse applications require.”
2. Myth: Unregulated Internet is definitively “good” or “bad” for its users.
Reality: The answer isn’t so black and white.
Advocates argue that net neutrality lowers financial and technical barriers to market entry for startups and entrepreneurs, who would not need to pay an additional fee for their users to have faster Internet service.
While companies like Netflix might be able to pay up whatever amount Internet providers require, budding online services may not be able to afford the extra cost, thus preventing them from competing with larger, established online content providers.
On the other hand, critics and Internet providers are concerned that regulating the market would discourage future investments in Internet infrastructure. In fact, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said Wednesday that his company will “pause” investments in fiber networks until the net neutrality debate is over. In a less dramatic announcement, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said that his company agrees with Obama in principle but that “the unfortunate reality is the uncertainty it creates, investment uncertainty.”
The nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation applauded Obama’s announcement supporting regulation, saying in a press release that he “got it right” by standing “with the us: the users, the innovators, the creators who depend on an open Internet.”
Others like Peter Van Doren, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, are “puzzled” as to why the issue is being treated like a consumer versus corporations debate, when it is in fact one among corporations. He also does not understand why “consumer advocates and people on the left think regulation will help them, as opposed to companies.”
“We look at regulated trucks, airlines, railroad industries, and the literature is pretty clear that consumers did not benefit,” he said in an interview Thursday.
3. Myth: Obama has supported a complete overhaul of the current FCC rules.
Reality: No, he’s proposed a “reclassification.”
The current law places all communication services under two categories: information services, like Facebook and Netflix, and telecommunication services, which include public utilities like the traditional phone service.
The FCC classified broadband Internet as an information service after a Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that allowed them to put it under the category of their choice.
Following their decision, however, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the FCC could not regulate services in the information service category.
The FCC has the power to declare that broadband Internet is a telecommunications service, and placing it under that category would allow them to draft up net neutrality regulations.
That’s why net neutrality supporters and Obama are urging the FCC to “reclassify” broadband Internet as a telecommunications service.
4. Myth: Obama has the final word on net neutrality regulations.
Reality: The FCC will make the ultimate decision.
While the president’s opinion might hold more weight than yours or mine, in the end, it’s just an opinion and not a binding command. Since the president’s statement supporting reclassification last week, the White House has reiterated that the ultimate decision will be in the hands of the independent agency.
That means FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is under a lot of pressure. His only official statement reflects that the commission is trying its best to end the years-long quest for net neutrality rules.
He wrote in a statement released last week: “We must take the time to get the job done correctly, once and for all, in order to successfully protect consumers and innovators online.”
Published in conjunction with 