The internet has become a part of the lives of many people in the world. With the internet, people can connect with others in a networked space where content and information are abundance and easy to find. Many people believe that the freedom on the internet is what made it so much popular today.
The internet is limitless and has no boundaries. Countless of information are added on the network to be accessed by anyone with internet connection. With the speed it's growing, there is no saying what information is legit and which are not, and there is no possible guarantee that the thing you see is not a scam and safe. And with more and more people accessing the internet, the flow of data is becoming more uncontrollable. This is where people started to think that there should be a law that governs it.
Internet neutrality (also known as: network neutrality or net neutrality) is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs), broadband providers and governments should treat all data on the internet equally without discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. Net neutrality is sometimes called "internet freedom" or internet openness, and is a legal principle that would forbid anyone from blocking websites or providing special priority to others.
The concept of network neutrality has existed since the age of the telegraph, but it was first coined by a Columbia media law professor Tim Wu in 2003. He said that "network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."
The net neutrality is seen as an important component of the open internet where every users can have equal treatment on the data they see without any third parties interfering them from communicating and conducting businesses. The opposite term is the "closed internet". It refers to the situation in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed internet will enable ISPs and governments to restrict access to necessary web standards, potentially degrading some services, speed and explicitly filter out content.
Companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others had declared a war on the internet’s foundational principle: that its networks should be "neutral" and users don't need anyone's permission to invent, create, communicate, broadcast, or share online. The neutral internet that provides "innovation without permission", has empowered all internet users with the freedom to express themselves and innovate online without having to seek the permission from anyone.
There has been debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law. Some people say that ISPs and governments have the right to control the flow of data. This is to make sure that they can impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline, removing competition that is not necessary while making the internet a safer place to be for users by scrutinizing every piece of information. Others express concerns that the "closed internet" will prevent any development and further innovations.
Although these people claim that they have no plan to filter internet contents or degrade internet speed performance, there has been a case where Comcast, the largest mass media and communications company in the world by revenue based in the U.S., intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications and blocked several basic, legal internet technologies that enabled such service. There were complaints and FCC ordered Comcast to stop. Comcast appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and that court ruled in 2010 that the FCC didn't have the jurisdiction to act.
All the FCC had to do at that time was clarify that internet service offered is a "telecommunications service," and to "reclassify" it as such. That would require reversing a few of the earlier orders (FCC policy 2005-2010) but the internet freedom was preserved. At that time, the commissions had a new Chairman, a Democrat named Julius Genachowski. He was a former FCC lawyer who had been among the biggest fundraisers for his Harvard classmate Barack Obama. Even though there are five FCC commissioners, the Chairman sets the agenda to control the budget and staffing of the entire agency. Genachowski made a YouTube video shown below, explaining why he had to reclassify internet services to ensure an open internet and asked his general counsel to explain the legalities in a widely shared FCC blog post.
Although Genachowski and his counselors promised to reclassify internet service, cable and ISP companies continued to oppose network neutrality. Genachowski made a deal with AT&T a few months after the Comcast order. The result of that deal was: a network neutrality order that was issued in December 2010, was full of loopholes, including exemptions for the now-dominant way of accessing the internet (mobile). Most importantly, he didn't reclassify, so his order was essentially designed to collapse.
AT&T, Verizon, and their allies argue that the decision means net neutrality is actually illegal, and the FCC can never adopt an order. Since January 14th, AT&T has submitted several patents that account for specific ways to take advantage of the FCC's limited authority. Verizon is also made allegations that they have been slowing access to both Netflix and to the Amazon Cloud services, although the company denies these allegations. Multiple independent sources have performed network speed analysis and do find slower connection times to these sites, although there is currently no proof. The FCC that had the power to clean up this mess, didn't seem to counter the issue.
FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, is highly regarded, but some distrust him because he is a former head lobbyist of both the cable and wireless phone industries. Wheeler first created the debate during remarks after a speech at the Ohio State University by saying his vision that is rooted in what he calls the "Network Compact." He explains that this compact is guided by principles that have been the standard of communications policy over the past century (principles he identified as "access, interconnection, and the encouragement and enablement of the public-purpose benefits of our networks (including public safety and national security)." But during the Q&A session following his prepared remarks, he indicated support for a scenario that the FCC's 2010 Open Internet rules are specifically designed to prevent, noting:
"I think we're also going to see a two-sided market where Netflix might say, 'well, I'll pay in order to make sure that you might receive, my subscriber receives, the best possible transmission of this movie.' I think we want to let those kinds of things evolve. We want to observe what happens from that, and we want to make decisions accordingly, but I go back to the fact that the marketplace is where these decisions ought to be made, and the functionality of a competitive marketplace dictates the degree of regulation."
Wheeler suggested that 'fast lanes' on the information superhighway might be possible for consumers, as well as for companies looking to get content to their customers through new, innovative applications or programs.
Netflix, Level 3 and Comcast
Before Google, Netflix, Mozilla, eBay, IAC, and other tech companies became more vocal in May 7th, 2014, The history that made net neutrality more than just a simple debate was when Netflix uses Level 3 Communications's CDN (Content Delivery Network) to host and transport its content.
Level 3 that was responsible to deliver Netflix's content then made agreements with ISPs like Comcast and others to reach it's subscribers with an agreement that said Level 3 could reach Comcast’s subscribers at no charge and in turn Comcast could connect with all of Level 3 customers at no charge. However, the agreements worked well when the amount of traffic flowing between the two networks was balanced.
In 2010, Level 3 informed Comcast that it needed more interconnection capacity with Comcast to bring Netflix's streaming content. In response, Comcast 'that had lost traffic' told Level 3 that it had to pay for that access. This is because streaming videos and other types of data-heavy traffic had created asymmetric traffic patterns. And since Comcast has the only direct line to Comcast customers, the imbalance traffic means that Comcast that is the gateway for Level 3 and Netflix's service, have the power to dictate the terms. Furthermore, Comcast was in the process of purchasing NBCUniversal, a cable content company, could be a direct threat to its revenues.
The payment schemes that Wheeler mentioned in his Q&A session represent an example of where priority and discrimination would occur - what the Open Internet rules were designed to prevent. And when examined in the context of the concerns about interconnection, that would allow ISPs like Comcast to further leverage their gateway status once again to extract additional fees from internet companies. And this has made many tech giants and startups furious.
Wheeler points to net neutrality as a key historical policy that drives innovation and competition on the modern internet. But with some government interventions, nothing will change. FCC ensures that innovation will still continue and FCC "will fight to preserve that capability."
Wheeler also said that that "regulating the internet is a nonstarter," which suggests he is already considering specific ways in which the FCC might step in. Yet determining the best regulatory path forward must be underscored by an examination of the entire internet ecosystem, and ensuring that it can lead to the types of effects internet users would expect in a competition-driven market.
Because of the complaints he received, Wheeler prepared to act; he will pitch rules that allow the agency to scrutinize the deals to make sure that the broadband providers don't unfairly put nonpaying companies' content at a disadvantage. Further, he will ask for public comment about whether "paid prioritization" deals (like the one Netflix recently signed with Comcast) should be banned outright.