Battle for the future of the Internet being waged

Editorial by Asheville Citizen-Times, February 21, 2014.

The Federal Communications Commission is moving aggressively to see that the Internet remains equally open to all. Despite recent court setbacks, the rules proposed for adoption should achieve that goal.

The principle here is “net neutrality,” the concept that those who provide Internet service treat all information equally. This was no big deal in the early days of the Internet, when there was little money to be made in manipulating content. Today, however, the stakes are higher, much higher.

The big providers, such as Verizon and Time Warner, don’t like neutrality. They want to be able to give preferred access to those who pay for that access. These entities would get their data transmitted faster and at higher quality.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of net neutrality. What would happen to the next Facebook or Google if providers were able to shunt them into the slow lane in order to give preferred access to established companies that were paying for the privilege?

What if your provider has a certain political philosophy and gives preferred access to sites that share that philosophy? With television you can always change the channel. It’s not that simple with Internet providers.

The FCC is hoping for success the third time around. Two previous efforts to establish rules have been struck down in the courts. Surprisingly, the most recent setback may actually have been a victory.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out rules to prevent deals for preferential access, saying the federal government did not have the right to treat Internet service providers as utilities. However, the court said the FCC had some basic authority “to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic.”

If anything, the outcome increased the FCC’s powers. Using that ruling as its guidelines, the agency developed the rules unveiled last week. Broadband companies would be subject to strict disclosure — another power upheld by the D.C. court — and would face greater enforcement if they did not perform as promised.

“Preserving the Internet as an open platform for innovation and expression while providing certainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibility of this agency,” said Tom Wheeler, who took over the FCC in November and has made net neutrality a priority.

Consumer advocates greeted the new rules with cautious optimism, though they would prefer that the FCC reclassifiy Internet providers as common carriers, or utilities. That sounds like a recipe for another court setback. Wheeler believes the rules announced last week will prevent preferential access.

Republicans in Congress and on the FCC continue to be hostile to net neutrality. Mike O’Rielly, a commissioner, says he fears the FCC will go on to regulate Internet content providers, which is hard to contemplate.

“No matter how many times the court says ‘no,’ the Obama administration (remains determined) to put government in charge of the web,” said a statement from U.S. Rep. Upton of Michigan, chair of the committee that oversees the FCC, and Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, leader of the technology subcommittee.

No one is talking about putting the federal government in charge of the Internet. What the FCC is trying to do is keep private companies from exerting control over the Internet to determine what you can receive through your provider.

Why is it that those who harp about control by the government, which is in the final analysis control by the people, have no problem with control by corporations with no duty aside to their shareholders?

Anyway, the FCC understands what its duty is. This time, the rules should stand up to court scrutiny.

www.citizen-times.com/article/20140224/OPINION01/302240007/Battle-future-Internet-being-waged