{"id":1849,"date":"2015-02-26T20:06:47","date_gmt":"2015-02-26T20:06:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-journal-of-law-and-public-policy.pantheonsite.io\/?p=1849"},"modified":"2015-02-26T20:06:47","modified_gmt":"2015-02-26T20:06:47","slug":"the-silent-net-neutrality-revolution-and-you","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/2015\/02\/26\/the-silent-net-neutrality-revolution-and-you\/","title":{"rendered":"The Silent Net Neutrality Revolution and You"},"content":{"rendered":"You may have heard that the FCC is changed the rules on the Internet. What will this mean for you?\n\nAfter a barrage of lobbying<\/a> efforts stemming from a serious<\/a> divide<\/a> in opinion in the business community, the Federal Communications Commission<\/a> (\u201cFCC\u201d) voted Thursday<\/a> on the future of Internet access.\n\nPreviously, in 2010, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals<\/a> struck down the FCC\u2019s proposed net neutrality rules, which misclassified Internet Service Providers (\u201cISPs\u201d) as an \u201cinformation service,\u201d as opposed to a \u201ctelecommunications service.\u201d The misclassification was vital, as \u201cinformation services\u201d are not as susceptible to regulation<\/a> as \u201ctelecommunication services.\u201d Now, current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is set to unveil a new proposal<\/a>, which reclassifies consumer broadband Internet as a \u201cutility\u201d under Title II of the Communications Act, thereby preventing ISPs from charging content providers for more reliable Internet access.\n\nThe concept of \u201cnetwork neutrality<\/a>\u201d underscores that all Internet data should be equal, and that ISPs should not be permitted to charge different companies more or less for their data usage. In essence, the debate over net neutrality is best understood<\/a> in terms of whether Internet access is more like access to electricity, or more like access to cable television services. The economic arrangement<\/a> for electrical services is quite simple, individuals pay utility companies money, and utility companies provide individuals with electricity. In this type of arrangement, the electric companies have no power, influence, or knowledge<\/a> of how or what the electricity provided is used for.\n\nIn contrast, the opposite is true for cable services. Comcast<\/a>, a cable service provider, offers a variety of packages from which individuals may choose, each with a different mix of channels and programs. Extensive cable service is considered to be a \u201cdiscretionary good<\/a>,\u201d and thus cable service providers have great discretion in both their mix of offerings \/ packages and pricing of services. In this type of arrangement, cable companies influence to a certain degree the final utilization of the goods and services that their customers receive.\n\nOpponents of net neutrality view the Internet more like access to cable television services, and thus are strongly opposed towards the government regulating ISPs as utilities. These opponents, which include Verizon, Comcast, TimeWarner, and AT&T<\/a>, claim that the Internet will be a \u201cricher experience<\/a>\u201d if profit motive applies. If the U.S. government were to become the Internet \u201ctraffic cop<\/a>,\u201d ISPs would lose their incentives to continue investing to improve networks and expand into new areas with little or no high-speed access. Accordingly, this would result in fewer innovations and threaten millions of jobs. Furthermore, ISPs argue that it would be unfair to enact regulations preventing them from recovering the extra costs incurred for connecting certain \u201cbroadband hogs<\/a>\u201d such as Netflix, whose service generates about \u201cone-third of U.S. online traffic<\/a>\u201d during the evening hours on weekdays. In addition, net neutrality critics contend that strong net neutrality rules and regulations would lead to increased government surveillance<\/a>, along with further unnecessary government bureaucracy and meddling.<\/a>\n\nProponents of net neutrality view the Internet more like access to electricity, and thus are in favor of the government regulating ISPs as utilities. Advocates of net neutrality include companies like MLB, Netflix, and Google. Advocates of net neutrality believe that rules and regulations are necessary to preserve a \u201cfree and open<\/a>\u201d Internet that gives all individuals the same access to \u201cany website hosting legal content, including video, music, photos, social networks, email, and maps.\u201d\n\nThe adoption of rules and regulations would prevent powerful online service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and TimeWarner Cable<\/a> from controlling Internet traffic in a way that best suits their own financial interests. Without net neutrality, ISPs could establish a two-tier system<\/a> that funnels Internet traffic into fast and slow \u201clanes<\/a>\u201d, thus enabling ISPs to \u201cthrottle<\/a>\u201d access to certain services and sites. As a result, only the richest companies would be able to pay the extra \u201ctolls\u201d<\/a> to guarantee that their online content remained accessible through such \u201cfast lanes.\u201d Accordingly, ISPs would stand to gain an economic windfall<\/a>, as the additional costs incurred for such fast lanes would be passed onto consumers in the form of new fees and charges. Under such circumstances, the Internet would no longer serve to \u201cenhance the freedoms<\/a>\u201d for all.\n\nIn the battle over net neutrality, the FCC has tried to implement and impose rules and regulations for over the last half-decade<\/a>. Ultimately, the new FCC rules reclassifying ISPs announced on Thursday will change the internet forever.<\/a>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The concept of \u201cnetwork neutrality\u201d underscores that all Internet data should be equal, and that ISPs should not be permitted to charge different companies more or less for their data usage. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1850,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,22,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-spotters","category-news-stories-2014-2015","category-recent-stories"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1849","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1849"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1849\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}