On Thursday February
5, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission officially altered the definition
of broadband Internet service. Under this new rule, the standard for Internet
download speed will be six times faster than the previous standard that was set
in 2010. This new announcement does not come as a shock, as the FCC’s chairman
Thomas Wheeler had recommended a change in policy concerning the speed standard
earlier this month. According to
Wheeler, this new revision was greatly needed in order to keep pace with the increasing
demand for faster and more accessible Internet in American homes. To
illustrate, currently in the United States 53% of Americans who live in rural
areas, which is approximately 22 million people, do not have what is considered
basic Internet access, or Internet that is on the 25-3 level. By comparison, only 8% of city dwellers lack
Internet speed that is on the 25-3 level. Under these new regulations, those
who live in rural areas will be brought up to date with the same kind of Internet
services that the rest of the country enjoys.
To add, the
Internet Association’s President Michael Beckerman has surprisingly praised the
FCC’s new regulations. Beckerman stated
that not only was the FCC’s revision “an appropriate policy goal,” but also
that resulting higher internet speeds would lead to a “virtuous circle of innovation,
new services and fresh demand from customers, which in turn fuels economic
growth.” In contrast, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association has
publically denounced the FCC’s new rules, declaring that they are “arbitrary
and capricious.” If the FCC were to peruse a stricter and regulatory policy, it
is certain that the large cable companies would flood the courts with a variety
of lawsuits.
Moreover, the
Federal Communications Commission’s revision to definition of broadband Internet
service could potentially influence the commission’s decision to make new rules
about net neutrality. Net neutrality,
the idea that the internet should be free and open, is the bane to many
telecommunications companies’ existence.
The FCC’s impending decisions about this issue could mean that new
regulations that affect how access speeds are maintained will be enacted, and
will consequently greatly reduce the profits of major telecommunications
companies. In addition, the FCC could potentially invoke
Title II regulations, which are currently used to regulate the phone companies.
Under Title II, cable companies would no longer be able to “selectively slow
traffic from websites such as Google or YouTube” and charge customers high
prices for Internet fast lanes. Although
the commission does not intend to enact some of the title’s more radical rules,
such as price controls, any attempt to
put any of the large cable companies under Title II regulations will be met with a great deal of protest. On the other hand, while Internet service providers
like Comcast and Version dread regulation by the FCC, Internet content
websites, like Google and Netflix, have vocal in their support about strong
action by the FCC. As a result of this growing controversy about
net neutrality, lobbying battle lines have been drawn in Congress and are
certain to greatly impact whether the FCC’s decisions will be successful or
not.
What do you think?
Should the FCC reclassify the cable companies under Title II? How do you think
that interest groups and lobbying will impact the FCC’s proposed policy? Will
the FCC’s new definition of broadband Internet services be beneficial to the
nation as a whole or is it “arbitrary and capricious?”
Sources:
3 comments:
Sophia,
With this type of argument it is hard to choose what side to take. On one hand it makes sense for the internet to stay the way it is and not allow net neutrality, because the companies built their brand on what they could provide, but it also only seems like the fair choice to allow everyone to have internet access. It would make sense for the fifty-three percent of rural home Americans who do not have basic access to internet to obtain this privilege. However, it can be seen that the internet is a privilege and if a person is not willing to pay for the internet then they do not deserve the Federal Communications Commission’s six times faster downloading regulation. Ultimately, if the people want internet access in the first place then they could receive it by signing up with one of the major companies that controls the internet. The most plausible reason for why fifty-three percent of rural Americans do not have basic internet access is not because they cannot receive it, it is because they do not want to pay for it.
In all honestly, I believe these companies have worked hard for their business, but I do not think it would be fair to keep them not under Title II. Title II would get rid of the all the dirty actions companies will take to get ahead of their competitors. However, it would also not be fair to the major telecommunication companies if they could not generate some kind of income. Business is ultimately all about competition and producing the best deals for your customers, and I do think that there has to be some regulation going on, but it should not control the entire industry.
To continue, if internet access was given to every citizen through net neutrality would there be any guarantee that everyone’s internet would be equally six times faster at downloading? Would those people who live in the most rural areas of the country have to pay for additional services in order to receive the same quality internet as a city dweller? Net neutrality is a great idea in concept, but there is no guarantees the same standard will be upheld across the country.
Overall, the Chairman of the FCC knows that the American population wants a faster and more innovative internet, and I could not agree more. I do believe that if the internet was more efficient and capable of broader proficiencies then maybe new ideas can be made to make our country more resourceful as a whole. Every decision made about the internet will impact the people directly. In the end, the FCC needs to be certain about their choices and honestly believe that their decisions is for the best of the nation.
I believe that the FCC should certainly reclassify cable companies under Title II. This reclassification scheme is essentially just one method of achieving some degree of “net neutrality.” An oft-discussed concept, net neutrality essentially refers to the equal treatment of data on the Internet. When an Internet user wants to access a website, the data from that website should be delivered equally fast whether it is the homepage of a major corporation or an individual's blog. There are two main arguments for net neutrality: the economic and the democratic.
Economically, net neutrality would maintain healthy competition and avoid monopoly. If cable companies can selectively slow traffic from certain websites, they can throttle the business of competitors. Examples include Comcast deliberately making it difficult to connect to Skype or Hulu since these businesses compete with Comcast's own television and phone service. Additionally, without net neutrality, companies can pay internet providers to block or slow user access to competitors' websites; for example, Hotels.com could pay Comcast to slow internet traffic to Trivago or Orbitz.
The second argument for net neutrality is democratic. From all the innovations of the past few decades, the Internet has perhaps contributed the most to democracy. An informed electorate is essential for a functioning democracy, and the Internet has greatly improved the average person's access to information. Not only can citizens access a wide range of sources, but it is now easier and cheaper than ever before for private individuals to distribute information. Whereas in the past one would need access to newspapers, radio, or television to reach a national audience, all you need to do today is create a YouTube video or write a blog, both activities which bear little to no cost. Without an enforcement of net neutrality, however, this great equalizing power of the internet can be eroded. If providers can offer “Internet fast lanes” which deliver data at quicker speeds for an extra cost, they can seriously narrow the range of information sources people can access. In addition, selective slowing of internet traffic could allow Internet companies to restrict speech by slowing or even blocking access to websites which promote political dissent or protest against corporate abuses, perhaps at the urging of lobbyists or shareholders.
I agree with the articles which state that a flood of lawsuits will follow any FCC policy change. Business interest groups and corporate lobbyists will fight tooth and nail against any new regulation because it limits their ability to act without government oversights for their own interests, rather than the public good. The American public must combat this corporate backlash by expressing broad and vocal support for FCC policy.
New Title II regulations will certainly benefit the public by ensuring fair and open access to the Internet, which is a bastion of democracy in the modern world. As most of television is now owned by a small handful of media conglomerates, it is essential to have a democratic communication medium with low production and maintenance costs, through which the everyman can have his opinion heard. While service providers like Comcast are private companies, internet access is not as clear-cut a private good as chocolates or clothing. Cyberspace has become something akin to a utility, with its channels comparable to roads and highways. The internet is deeply ingrained into American life; it has become a place for communication, innovation, and work. The FCC is wise not to overreach by setting price controls, but their current proposal is a step in the right direction. It is essential that the government have some oversight in this field in order for the internet to remain the haven of free speech and public access it is today.
https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality
https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-free-speech-national-security/fcc-heal-thyself
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/
Sophia, I think this is an interesting topic you wrote about. I understand and mostly agree with David's comments that the plan is good for the economy and for democracy. However, I also agree with some arguments from the opposing side, which is why I agree with Sammy that it is a tough decision to make. If an internet site or provider is able to provide its customers with internet access that is faster than another company, it should be allowed to do so becuase it worked to get to a point where it could do that for the people. With that said, I do see that the competition can be unfair sometimes and that the companies could intentionally slow down other sites, which doesn't seem fair. I think companies should be allowed to help their customers in any way possible, but they shouldn't be able to "selectively slow" others. A Washington Post article I read said that the FCC is currently made up of three Democrats and two Republicans, so when the commmission votes, the votes will mostly likely be split. Ultimately, I think that there are strong arguments for and against the proposal and that that makes it very difficult to make a decision, especially on something so important to society today, like the internet. Here is the URL for the article I read:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/12/whos-going-to-sue-the-fcc-over-net-neutrality-probably-the-cable-lobby/
Post a Comment