Net Neutrality, the ongoing battle to keep the internet - well neutral, without the ability for ISPs to be able to slow down “certain” services, block content or allow “certain” companies to pay for faster data transfers, continues to be debated today. The overall notion for net neutrality was intended to protect every existing site online, in that it should run at even speeds and with equal access for everyone accessing the net.
In order for the FCC to properly ensure that there is no discrimination of information selectively being shared over the net, they had to correct terminology within the net neutrality rules that improperly labeled internet and phone companies.
As it turned out, the improper labeling of broadband and phone companies allowed room for loopholes.
The (now former) chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski aimed to rework the definition of these such companies from an “information service provider” label, to a “telecommunications provider” label, so that they could better facilitate net neutrality under a proper and more accurate classification.
But Genachowski received so much opposition from cable and phone companies that the FCC eventually lost their momentum to overhaul the language, and the net neutrality rules remained unchanged. Until recently, as of to date, the FCC has instead reversed this position and reworked the net neutrality rules to allow ISPs to charge for improved services, within “commercial reason.”
Tech giants such as, “Google, Netflix, Mozilla and eBay” have notably opposed the new net neutrality rules. And several news outlets report today that both tech giants and venture capitalists continually join together to help push a mandate to enforce neutrality of network disbursements online.
It is known that the risks of net neutrality could ultimately kill small business, but the fact that high profiting giants also fear non-implementation of net neutrality, really is quite telling. One columnist posts this online,
“this is double dipping by internet providers. They send me a bill every month for their service and now they want to send a bill to the businesses I choose to patronize online? My monthly fee should give me access to whatever legal content I want at full speed. I shouldn’t have to hope that the business on the other end is also paying their bill for best results.”
A reporter from Forbes posted today that the idea of net neutrality is “dumb.” Everything in business comes with a price. Nothing is ever ‘neutrally' priced. He says that when things are plentiful, that giving unlimited and equal access kind of makes sense, but like many of these other things, the internet is running out of room and online access as a whole is getting bogged down. In order to better facilitate the transfer of online data over networks, net neutrality cannot really exist.
Obama was said to have been a passionate backer of the old net neutrality rules proposed by the FCC. When Genachowski stepped down as chairman, Obama appointed Tom Wheeler to replace him. Wheeler's appointment was initially met with skepticism, as his history was a “former head lobbyist of both the cable and wireless phone industries.” Strange right? However, Wheeler did support the FCCs original notion in that broadband access should be treated similarly to regulations in telephone landlines (instilling equal access) as it is a telecommunications service.
What do you think? Will others be swayed to forgo the old net neutrality rules in favor of the new one, just like the FCC did?