By Sue Holmberg, CPE Staff Economist
March 23, 2011
Since its public inception in the 1990s, the Internet has been a fairly open and democratic means of communicating and conducting business (at least for those with broadband access). This principle of equality, also called “net neutrality,” has enabled Internet users in myriad ways: to launch multinational companies in their garages, expose police brutality, launch grassroots movements, make microloans, and produce and share videos no Hollywood studio would ever touch.
The principle of net neutrality holds that Internet service providers should treat “all sources of data equally” (New York Times 2010). In other words, no content provider can pay for faster transmission of their website and no content or application can be blocked or impeded for representing a controversial viewpoint. Whether Donald Trump or an average citizen, content users and providers experience the same quality of access and service.
According to Malkia Cyril, Executive Director of the Center for Media Justice (one of CPE’s main collaborators at this year’s Summer Institute on Media, Democracy and the Economy), “All of these rules are intended to create a level playing field, [to] ensure equal access. All of these rules are intended to make sure there is equal space for all of your voices and my voice.” This level playing field is the very reason why the Internet has fostered economic competition and innovation, free speech and grassroots democratic participation.
In the past few years, net neutrality has come under threat. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner are spending millions of lobbying dollars to set up a “fast lane” for higher paying customers. Under this structure, all other websites would be loaded more slowly and some none at all. These companies also want to favor their own search engines and Internet phone service, while slowing those of their competitors (Save The Internet 2011). According to Cyril, “The point is that, without the principle of network neutrality, companies get to decide whether [to give the same internet access to] content that won’t make them any money” (Cyril 2010). Enjoy iTunes? Facebook? Political blogs? If the Internet we know and enjoy becomes compartmentalized by broadband providers, your access to these websites could become sluggish at best. Imagine, without net neutrality, how restricted our access to solid news information would be; the impacts on democratic participation would be devastating.
The net neutrality debate has intensified in the past few years, culminating in 2010 with deep disappointments for advocates of an open Internet. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) supports net neutrality, but its authority to protect it was weakened by a federal appeals decision that restricted its power over broadband services. Furthermore, in December of 2010, the FCC made a compromise on net neutrality that distinguished two classes of Internet access: one for wireless and one for fixed-line providers. The rules of the compromise ban any explicit blocking and discrimination by fixed-line providers. Wireless providers, however, have more license to “manage their networks.” According to Free Press (also collaborating with CPE on the 2011 Summer Institute), “the rules pave the way for AT&T to block your access to third-party applications and require you to use its own preferred applications” (Free Press 2010). In other words, mobile device users can no longer access the same Internet they can on their computers.
There will be much battling on net neutrality in the courts and in Congress in the coming months. The new Republican House is working to further weaken “the FCC’s ability to act as a watchdog against industry abuses and to take away the agency’s ability to enforce protections” (Save the Internet 2011). In the Senate, however, Al Franken and Maria Cantwell have introduced “The Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011,” designed to protect net neutrality under the 1934 Communications Act.
The Internet might be the closest that society has ever come to a commons—for both the democratic exchange of ideas and competitive economic enterprise. The future of net neutrality is uncertain, but it’s reassuring that people, organizations, and businesses are putting up a fierce fight to save this unique public space. Just as the Internet itself links people from all walks of life, so too does the movement to protect it.
Sources
-Cyril, Malkia. Presentation. “Race, Immigration, and the Fight for an Open Internet,” National Radio Project. 3/23/10. http://www.radioproject.org/2010/03/race-immigration-and-the-fight-for-anopen-internet.
-Ettinger, Jenn. Free Press. “FCC Net Neutrality Order a ‘Squandered Opportunity.’” 12/21/10. http://www.freepress.net/press-release/2010/.
12/21/free-press-fcc-net-neutrality-order-%E2%80%98squanderedopportunity%E2%80%99.
-New York Times. “Net Neutrality.” 12/22/10. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html.
-Save the Internet. “FAQ.” 4/1/11. http://www.savetheinternet.com/faq.
-Stearns, Josh. Free Press. Interview. 4/1/11.
