The FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Are Dead. Here's What That Means

Literature reveals that the concept of net neutrality is relatively new to many people. Tim Wu, a law professor, introduced the concept of net neutrality in 2002. His concept paper aimed to come up with a set of guidelines for broadband internet service providers to guard against company interference with internet traffic. Additionally, it further seeks to guard against the discriminatory use of the internet in which some companies provide more reliable and faster internet for the preferred content. The internet and information technology have significantly informed most of the world communication and information sharing the process. However, the growth and reliance on the internet as technology has equally brought with it, some of the unethical practices in the quest for market capitalization and service delivery. Therefore, Net Neutrality is viewed as the key to ensuring maintained service provision that protects against discrimination against network traffic as a way of providing necessary protection to the network. As use and reliance on internet network continue to grow especially among the millennials, there is a need for people to understand the concept of Net Neutrality, some of the views both in support and against the concept, and how such affects their use and choice of internet service providers. 

History of Net neutrality 

The idea of controlling ethical and indiscriminate use of the network is not new to the United States. It is documented that the Communication Acts of 1934 helped in the creation of the Federal Communication Commission that sought to regulate the wired telephone, radio and telegraph communication networks across the state and beyond the borders. However, it is notable that telecommunication laws have been subject to several amendments that have been cognisant to the prevailing political and technological developments. One of the key developments to the effect was the creation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that gave the provision of the cable television and communication network. The law further gave provision of the decision as to how new technologies are classified. The birth of Net neutrality came in 2002 when the Federal Communication Commission classified cable-enabled television as an information service. However, Brand X from California opposed the move arguing that cable companies and others within the same line be allowed to access data in the same manner that telephone companies allowed the Internet Service Providers to access their data lines. However, in the case of National Cable and Television Association v. Brand X Internet Services (2005), upheld the decision of the FCC. 

Over the years, there have seen to be a cordial working relationship between the Internet Service Providers an FCC, centred on adhering to the provision of the requirement of Net Neutrality. One of the key strategies that have aimed at drumming support to the Net Neutrality concept is the 2004 conference on Network Freedom set guidelines for the formulation of the 2005 Internet Policy Statement. The transformation and adherence to the guidelines have been progressive and subject to deliberations among the key stakeholders. However, the first hurdle for FCC and victory for Internet Service Providers was the 2007 Federal Court Ruling in which they faulted FCC for acting out of their mandate in requiring Comcast to treat all network traffic equally. In their view, FCC aimed to assert their dominance and influence via the Internet Order of 2010 in which internet service providers were demanded to be open in their network sharing and management practices (Federal Communications Commission, 2017). Under these guidelines, the internet service providers were required to adhere to equal and fair treatment of internet traffic as well as guard against blockage of lawful contents. 

Supporting Views on Net Neutrality 

The argument for and against net neutrality have measurable benefits on the consumer ends. Notably, most consumers live in an era that significantly influences and controlled by the reliance on internet service provision. Understanding the position of internet-based use is key making informed decision. That taken into consideration, it has been widely reported that FCC aims at ensuring equity in network sharing and internet-based information access. Supporting views argue that net neutrality has helped most consumers to understand their position within the internet based market (John, 2018). For instance, there is a concise understanding and argument about people who use the internet to access the illegal site and those who equally use it to perform productive duties. The argument as to how the companies such as Verizon should treat the different set of consumers is spelt out. Above all, there are the ethical arguments on companies such as Google and Amazon that use a large volume of data and are willing and capable of paying more for faster speed for their consumer. Some of the allayed fears of such are spelt out within the Net Neutrality to ensure that all consumers are protected regardless of the size of the internet that they opt to use. 

Supporting views on internet neutrality argue that equality among all internet users must be the same regardless of the need with which one intends to use the internet. As such, the same amount of fee should be applied to a person who accesses the email, watch a movie, stream videos as long as their use of the internet does not contradict the law in any way. The central argument to the effect is that any use of internet regardless of the amount of data use at any given point aim at meeting customer satisfaction and demands. As such, neutrality in its original sense and meaning demands that people pay for the internet use freely and equally for all. 

The absence of repealing of Net Neutrality will open doors that create a pool of the untouchables within the internet based industry. As was mentioned large companies such as Netflix and Google are likely to be some of the beneficiaries. Fung (2018) for The Washington Post reported that Comcast one of the US largest Cabled internet service providers is aiming to include Netflix directly as one of its product line up. The move is seen to significantly go against the concept of free and equal sharing of the internet that FCC has for many years opted to vouch for. Additionally, the move by Comcast to include Netflix is seen as discriminatory to some of the start-up businesses within the same line. 

The argument against Net Neutrality 

As much as a good number of people have averred support to Net Neutrality as a means of protecting the consumer interest, a significant portion equally validates arguments against the current framework. Some of the argument that has been presented against the arrangement include hindrance to competition, innovation and lack of freedom of choice as provided for within the US constitution. 

Central to their argument is that net neutrality impedes further developments to improve internet service services. It is argued that most broadband service providers are not willing to invest in the infrastructure or development of innovative services since the creation of net neutrality regulations. By repealing the Act, most telecom companies are likely to focus investments in the creation of innovative premium services around artificial intelligence and general improvement of the security features (Ruiz, 2015). Apart from the internet service provision, there are other services as such as image recognition that is likely to improve service provision to a number of consumers. Notably, the current regulations significantly discourage further investments. 

Secondly, most manufacturing practices are overtly internet based. Therefore, the telecommunication infrastructure must ensure that companies can keep developing their internet connectivity. Amount of investments by the private sector are those that are done with a view of upscaling economic growth and development. The presence of regulations in the internet service provision arguably holds back development and creation of new technologies into the market. The internet world has evolved in time and space. Some of the gains have been seen in e-commerce, telecommunication, and artificial intelligence. However, stringent regulations may further hinder future developments that are reliant within the internet business such as the prototype driverless cars among other innovative solutions to make the world more habitable. 

Conclusion 

Communication access and transfers are some of the most dynamic issues in the world at the moment. As such, information and network sharing become a critical component in ensuring that the world remains empowered. Net Neutrality judged by history remains an ever-changing provision to ensure that communities and nations are treated with fairness and equity. Net Neutrality under the Federal Communication Commission has aimed at creating a levelled play field for most internet service users. However, regulations on the use and sharing of the internet are viewed as an impediment to innovation, development and they negate the spirit of competition. 

References 

Federal Communications Commission. (2017). American Law Yearbook 2016 : A Guide to the Year's Major Legal Cases and Developments , Gale. pp. 84-86. Opposing Viewpoints in Context . USA. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3633800037/OVIC?u=nhc_main&sid=OVIC&xid=309fd335. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019. 

Fung., B. (2018). Now even Comcast wants to Netflix and chill. Washingtonpost.com . Opposing Viewpoints in Context . Retrieved from: http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A534620793/OVIC?u=nhc_main&sid=OVIC&xid=291664b9. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019 

John., T (2019)). Net Neutrality . Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection , Gale, 2019. Opposing Viewpoints in Context . Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/POPAEC782084913/OVIC?u=nhc_main&sid=OVIC&xid=fb3ec8ae. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019. Originally published in 22 Mar. 2018. 

Ruiz., R. (2015). The New Net Neutrality Rules. NYTimes.com Video Collection , 12 Mar. 2015. Global Issues in Context , http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CT405913697/OVIC?u=nhc_main&sid=OVIC&xid=9d7ba7fa. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.