MEDIALITERACYCase StudyNet Neutrality

For more than a decade, the debate over net neutrality has framed the potential future of the Internet. Far from being any closer to a final resolution, the debate has become even more heated recently, and has begun to expand into areas that include the overall Internet speed and access being provided by the infrastructure owned by various Internet service providers (ISPs). Net neutrality refers to the principle that every Web site and every user—whether a multinational corporation or a private citizen—has the right to the same Internet network speed and access. The idea of an open and neutral network has existed since the origins of the Internet, but as we will see, making those ideals into lasting rules has been a battle that is far from finished.

The dispute over net neutrality and the future of the Internet is dominated by some of the biggest communications corporations. These major telephone and cable companies—including Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and Cox—control 98 percent of broadband access in the United States through DSL and cable modem service. They want to offer faster connections and priority to clients willing to pay higher rates, and provide preferential service for their own content or for content providers who make special deals with them—in other words, to eliminate net neutrality. For example, tiered Internet access might mean that these companies would charge customers more for data-heavy services like Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, or iTunes. These companies argue that the profits they could make with tiered Internet access would allow them to build expensive new networks, benefiting everyone.

But supporters of net neutrality—mostly bloggers, video gamers, educators, religious groups, unions, and small businesses—argue that the cable and telephone giants actually have incentive to rig their services and cause net congestion in order to force customers to pay a premium for higher-speed connections. They claim that an Internet without net neutrality would hurt small businesses, nonprofits, and Internet innovators, who might be stuck in the “slow lane” and not be able to afford the fastest connections that large corporations can afford. Large Internet corporations like Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, eBay, Microsoft, Skype, and Facebook also support net neutrality because their businesses depend on their millions of customers having equal access to the Web.

307

In late 2010, the FCC adopted rules on net neutrality, noting it as “an important step to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression.”¹ But the big telecom companies filed lawsuits in protest, and the FCC’s first attempts at net neutrality rules were twice rejected by federal courts.

In late 2014, the Obama administration started advocating stronger net neutrality rules, asking the FCC to follow suit—which they did in February of 2015, voting to reclassify broadband Internet service as a public utility, with FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying Internet access was “too important to let broadband providers be the ones making the rules.”² The move doesn’t transform private companies into public entities, but does grant the public (via the FCC) clearer jurisdiction over Internet rules. It also brings mobile wireless broadband under the same jurisdiction, and tries to make it easier for communities to encourage competition by creating their own municipal telecoms. Specifically, the FCC has put into place rules that disallow blocking (broadband providers prohibiting access to legal content and services), throttling (the act of intentionally impairing or degrading Internet performance based on content or source), and paid prioritization (favoring some Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for payment, creating “fast lanes”).³

The FCC action doesn’t mean the issue is now settled; less than two months after the ruling, lawsuits challenging the ruling had already been filed, including one by USTelecom, a trade group that represents several large telecommunications corporations.⁴ If the past is any indication, these lawsuits will take months or even years to move through the courts.

Supporters of the FCC’s new regulations say that the large private ISPs, which largely operate as monopolies in their areas, have been more focused on profits than customer service and technological advancement, making intervention necessary. Wheeler argued that the overall Internet speed in the United States is too slow, in part after a number of studies showed the U.S. system lagging far behind systems in other countries. For example, customers in South Korea, Japan, and most of Europe are paying less for much faster service.⁵ Companies like Comcast say paid prioritization would help pay for a faster Internet, but some studies on Internet service find that the U.S. communities with the fastest service are those that have systems owned and operated by local governments without a tiered fee structure, found in places like Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Cedar Falls, Iowa.⁶

Despite the new FCC rules, it’s clear that this issue isn’t settled. The fight will continue in the court system as well as the political arena. The FCC members are appointed by the sitting president and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms. The vote that approved the new rules in 2015 was 3–2, along party lines. This will likely be a consideration for major telecommunication groups as they write checks to lobbyists and political campaigns.

APPLYING THE CRITICAL PROCESS

DESCRIPTION Interview a sample of people about their views on net neutrality. Would they be willing to pay higher rates for faster connections? Do they think every Web site should have the same network speed and access?

ANALYSIS What sorts of patterns emerge from your interviews? Are there common views on the way the Internet should be accessed? Do your interviewees seem to be concerned or unconcerned about the issue of net neutrality? Do your questions make them think about this issue for the first time?

INTERPRETATION What do these patterns mean? Is the idea of net neutrality better or worse for democracy? Would eliminating net neutrality undercut the usefulness and accessibility of the medium?

EVALUATION Is net neutrality a benefit of the Internet? What should the standards of speed and access to it be? How should they be enforced?

ENGAGEMENT Learn about and take action for or against net neutrality. Visit SavetheInternet.com to learn how to prevent net neutrality’s elimination. Share your knowledge with your peers.