The big news this past week was the increasingly real game of chicken that the Senate played with the budget–all but narrowly avoiding an out-and-out government shutdown. What with threats to defund such programs as NPR and family planning services, it’s perhaps not a surprise to see why the House’s silent reversal of Net Neutrality legislation hasn’t drawn as much ire as other social hot-button issues. In my opinion, however, Net Neutrality is just as important and pressing of an issue (see my primer for a basic run down of Net Neutrality).
Now, in December, the FCC took some pretty bold steps and passed a compromise: basically, they came up with a few rules that forbid ISPs from slowing online services, but left wireless companies with a lot more latitude. According to Sam Gustin at Wired,
“[n]ew rules, which will go into effect early next year, force ISPs to be transparent about how they handle network congestion, prohibit them from blocking traffic such as Skype on wired networks, and outlaw “unreasonable” discrimination on those networks, meaning they can’t put a competing online video service in the slow lane to benefit their own video services.”
Awesome, right? I know I was pumped. While these rules still neglect to regulate the Internet available via phone networks (the fastest growing in the country), it is an attempt to reclassify broadband as a communication service, and in my opinion, it’s a step in the right direction.
Fast forward to this last week, where the House voted to overturn these rules, because ultimately, Congress has the power override regulatory agencies. Now, before we panic, this vote is believed to be mostly symbolic. It still needs to go through the Senate, not to mention, President Obama has promised to veto any legislation reversing net neutrality. The fear exists, however, that it could be slipped in as a rider on other larger bills, making it harder to veto. In any event, it’s believed that Net Neutrality is “safe” for now.
Opponents to the FCC’s self-passed rules maintain that Congress hasn’t yet given the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet and that these rules are essentially a power grab. One would think that the agency regulating communication wouldn’t need to be authorized, but it’s a different ballgame in Washington. If you haven’t yet noticed, I’m leaning to the left, I know. I admit it! Regardless of political affiliations, however, I think keeping the Internet neutral is something we can all agree on. It is precisely this state that allows new business to thrive – businesses like Twitter, Skype, and Groupon – businesses that are hiring like mad in one of the worst economic climates in 70 years. This “regulation” by the FCC is simply trying to keep the Internet as it is currently – unregulated, and fair.
But that’s just me. What do you think?
