I’ve noticed a lot of recent uproar in our American political system over the idea of “net neutrality.” Up until now, I was not aware that many other people knew what the concept meant. Now it seems that there is mounting tension in the Republican party over whether or not the FCC (or any other governmental body) should make any kind of law regarding how ISP’s (Internet Service Providers) operate. For those still unaware, net neutrality can be defined as “…a principle which advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers’ access to networks that participate in the internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, or the modes of communication.” (Bold mine. Definition taken from Wikipedia, whom I will consider a reliable source on this topic because of the topic’s content and Wikipedia’s relevance to it.)
In December of 2010, the FCC created a series of regulations set to go into effect this summer that will prevent “cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix.” (Also taken from Wikipedia.) Republicans have gone into an uproar and are hoping to use Congress to combat these regluations.
What we have here is a trichotomy of bodies interacting with the internet. There are Internet Service Providers, the government, and the consumer/user. The definition of net neutrality is the prevention of either governmental or ISP interference with the consumer’s access to internet content. The recent regulations put in place by the FCC are pro-net neutrality. These regulations are being placed in a way that will prevent ISPs from restricting consumer access to competitor’s content or content that consumes more bandwidth than usual (bandwidth being loosely defined as the amount of “space” taken up by digital content on the web. Think of your water pressure as your internet speed and the number of gallons consumed per month as bandwidth). To illustrate with a real scenario, the FCC’s rules would keep Comcast from restricting access to Netflix (which consumes more than half of Comcast’s total bandwidth) or Google (who is about to enter the ISP market) from preventing access to Yahoo!.
The regulations are stirring chaos because 1) the FCC (who was formed to hold jurisdiction over all electronic communication) did not go through Congress to make these regulations, and 2) because the regulations are being seen as “governmental control.” I disagree that this “control” is necessarily bad. Remember that trichotomy I mentioned earlier? One member of that body, the government, is attempting to keep the other body, ISPs, from restricting consumer access to content. The government is not attempting to regulate individual access or control. Without laws promoting net neutrality, I could easily foresee a future where the internet has become a twin of cable television. A consumer would contact his ISP, purchase a “package” of websites to access, and pay a monthly charge based on the amount or kind of sites/services in that package. Internet browsing would cease to be free range–the consumer would begin to pay for a bigger cage instead of a gate ticket.
I can sympathize with those who disagree with me and believe that the ISPs, who own the ability to access the web and are providing that service to others, have the full right to restrict user access to whatever they please. If the consumer has a problem, then the consumer can go buy access from Charter instead of Comcast, or switch back to dial-up. Under most circumstances, I would agree. The man who builds the road should be able to make the road go wherever he wants. The difference with the Internet is that it is a user-created environment. ISPs wouldn’t be restricting access to something that the ISPs themselves created. The internet is a beautiful creation born out of expression and free speech. It is a community. When you shut the gate on the user, you shut the gate on that creative ability and experience. You kill business for growing entrepreneurs. You destroy an excellent way for the upcoming generation to explore the minds of their peers and create a whole new world of jobs and collective expression. If the average user could find his own way to access the web, I’d have a much less enthusiastic stand on net neutrality. A TV consumer can throw a digital box and a pair of rabbit ears on his television set and pick up any homegrown local station he wants to. With a big enough antenna, he could pick up almost anything user-created. A man can pave his own road to wherever he wants if he has the money and supplies. An internet consumer cannot do that. If his ISP decides to cut his access to a specific site, then he’s out of luck. There isn’t a pair of rabbit ears he can buy to pick up a signal on his own.
That’s what I’m talking about here. I’m not arguing about a company’s right to provide or restrict what it wants or the job of the government to mind its own business. I’m arguing about the possible restriction of the average citizen’s right to access the content he wants to access. I’m arguing about the possible destruction of the greatest tool of the last century. For the sake of your children and the things they could accomplish–don’t mess this one up.
inonedirection 