On January 14th, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order. This means that the net neutrality is dead, at least for now.
Net neutrality (network neutrality or internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and the governments should treat all data on the internet equally. This allows different users to see what others can see without discrimination.
There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law. Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block internet applications and contents.
Many people believe that net neutrality is as important as the preservation of current freedoms. Vint Cerf, the "father of the internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, as well as Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, and many others have spoken out in favor of net neutrality. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term net neutrality a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.
Bordering the Freedom
By killing net neutrality, broadband providers can now have a lot more control over what websites people visit on the internet and what services they can access.
The decision overturned rules put in place by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010 that barred wired internet providers from blocking access to particular sites or services, and generally required them to treat all internet traffic equally.
While the court's ruling will anger people who support open internet, it's not the judges who are to blame. The federal regulators are the people in charge of this commitment. Their subservience to the big telecommunications companies and timidity in writing the rules governing internet traffic led directly to the court's decision.
Since its founding, the internet has operated differently, at least for most countries. The understanding is that end users should be able to connect to any site or service attached to the network, not just those that their broadband service provider approves.
But in recent years, net neutrality has been challenged by the service providers in the U.S.. In response to those challenges, the FCC, which regulates telecommunications services in the U.S., put in place its open internet rules, which sought to explicitly codify the principles of net neutrality.
Without net neutrality, ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon will be able to block content they don't like. Rejecting apps that compete with their own business, and prioritize web traffic and the fastest loading speeds for the highest bidders and sticking everyone else with the slowest.
The result is sure to be confusion in the marketplace, and that is an environment in which the big companies and government can strengthen their own positions and implement new and innovative ideas to soak the ultimate customers: most people who use the internet.
The tools ISPs use to block and control our communications aren't different from the ones the NSA uses. These tools break the internet and makes it less open and secure.
But the FCC made what turns out to have been a mistake. As the appeals court noted in its ruling, the open internet rules essentially require the broadband providers to act as "common carriers," a class of highly regulated companies that are required to treat all customers the same. Unfortunately, the FCC determined long ago that the providers weren't common carriers.
For many people, the internet shouldn't be a bordered freedom. It should remain a place when innovation takes place, an environment for free expression. As so many startups and political activists know, open, affordable, fast and universal communications networks are essential to individual, economic and political futures.