On my way to work this morning, I was listening to the Diane Rehm show, per usual, and the discussion was around this snippet that I quoted from their Web site:
“A U.S. appeals court has ruled that the F.C.C. does not have the power to force Comcast and other Internet service providers to give equal treatment to all Web content. What the ruling could mean for consumers and the future of net neutrality.”
Net neutrality is not a new concept for bloggers or traditional journalists, but if I can increase the awareness on this potentially monumental issue surrounding this recent legal case, then I’ll take this limited space to do so.
Started in 1934, the Federal Communications Commission has worked to regulate a complex communications system that continues to grow in size. Beginning with the radio, the advancement of technology makes the FCC’s job harder as the years go by.
The FCC is largely able to enforce its power due to its status as a government agency and the legal implications with failure to comply with regulations. Without an agency like the FCC, the US runs the risk of even more communication corruption and a select few entities struggling to own and regulate all content with monetary and other ulterior motives (uh…this is already kinda happening but think bigger, like China and the recent announcement that Google is pulling it’s Web site, Google.cn). Side note: Funny how privacy, control and ownership seem to traverse across many heated platforms? Funny also how the Government via the FCC could quickly become a controller itself…another day.
People seem to worship or hate the FCC (for the side note stated above), but there is no denying that without some type of regulation we would have even greater issues. That is why the recent legal defeat that the FCC has faced in its battle with Comcast is especially destructive.
The broader idea of network neutrality is the idea that without it, internet service providers can control what you access and how you access it. So, you pay Comcast your $40 a month for internet (what you think is access to all that is available) and they can block you from certain sites due to the bandwidth they take up (among other things they could do). By the FCC loosing it’s most recent legal battle with Comcast over this, essentially the judge says, “FCC, your legal power no longer holds up in court on this issue. There are too many holes in your argument and providers can do what they want for now.” That means not only can they block certain sites, but they can control the content you see and how quickly you receive it. So hypothetically, they could make other sites especially slow for you to use so you make a switch to a faster competitor. Side note: You have to control people to not control people. That doesn’t even make sense.
It seems then, that everyone is vying for control of what was originally created to be an open system, and the internet still is, but all points of access and content on the internet are what people fight to control. So my questions are: What is the reason for Comcast wanting control anyway (pure or impure motives)? What are all the possible implications of this outcome? What does this mean for other laws and future laws the FCC tries to enforce? Is this victory for Comcast indicative of an increase in control from providers in the future, or a wake-up call?
For now at least, I’m glad Comcast isn’t my provider.
Good article Abby and I am glad to see you are drawing attention to this topic. I am going to withhold my comments until a few students have chimed in - they are on their way…
While this seems to have been a hot topic since the early 2000s, it’s fairly new to me. After reading your article, I’m disappointed that Comcast defeated the FCC and now has control over the content they provided to its users. I find it hard to believe ISPs would want to use this control for the common good of the people by limiting access to inappropriate material. It’s easier to believe they would use their control to benefit them (the ISP) in the long run. For example, say Comcast has a link somehow to American Airlines. When it’s users are searching for airline tickets, ideally Comcast would limit access or even slow access to all other Web sites that promote airlines that aren’t American Airlines. And if this happened, who’s to say what else the ISP would begin to block, monitor or provide only limited access to. Could this soon become a violation of our First Amendment Right to free Speech, if the speech we want the public to hear is blocked or limited? How would/could laws be established to say what can and cannot be limited? Personally, I think the idea of ISPs controlling the content of the Internet is ridiculous. As Abbie said, The Internet is an open system, but I also believe access and content should be, too.
Abby, I really like this article; it’s very informational and interesting. This is not the first thing I have seen on this topic. However, I had not read into it in detail until recently. This is definitely becoming a hot topic very quickly. I think I have to agree with you here. What Comcast is trying to do is ridiculous. There is no need to regulate the sites people use to force them to purchase from your company; there are other ways to get people’s business. I also agree with what Teresa said in that this could quickly become a free speech issue. The Internet is an open system. I do believe that inappropriate material, such as things that are explicit or offensive should be blocked, but for the most part, let people read what they want to and use the Internet how they see fit for their lives.
I also think that what Comcast is trying to do is unnecessary and stupid. The internet has been, and always should be an open system with all of its information avaliable to everyone. As Casey said, there are some things that should be blocked, but the majority of things should be open to anyone. I think that in some circumstances certain Websites shouldn’t be avaliable to just anyone. For instance, like at the Oklahoma State library, in order to access some of the data bases you have to have a user name and a password. I think this would be appropriate in several cases to access different Websites around the web and his motive should be considered before completely blocking certain sites.
Thanks for the comments Teresa, Casey and Jaycie! One thing you guys didn’t touch on is that fact that there are indeed holes in the FCC’s legal arguments, which is why they lost. Perhaps if they would have taken more care with their guidelines, Comcast wouldn’t have been able to take advantage of the system. At the end of the day, providers have their own agenda, and it is typically not free speech. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to the FCC to ensure there are not legal holes in their stipulations in the future.
-Abby
I think what Comcast is doing is unfair, as well! I could be going to far by saying that with all the rules and regulations coming down on us how free are we to actually communicate? Free thinking is what this country was built on and now the government is letting service providers decide what information they allow us to see. I understand why we do need the ability to block certain sites, but that should be up to us as individuals to do so. We are definitely on a slippery slope downhill with this ruling regarding our ability to access all the information that we want. I hope this ruling doesn’t continue to stand in the future!
Meaghan,
I completely agree with what you are saying. I too, wonder how free we are to communicate these days. Luckily, Comcast is not my provider, but what if this is the new trend for providers to follow? Hopefully things can get sorted out and this type of behavior does not continue to happen. I already feel like my internet searches are controlled in ways to benefit the “top dogs,” but at least with google they indicate who sponsored those results.
This is actually the first time I have heard something about this issue. It’s somewhat ironic that this government is to support what the people want, yet somehow there is always an ulterior motive for someone to have control over the public. This is an interesting debate because as Abby said, FCC didn’t formulate a very concrete concrete argument which could have helped subscribers to Comcast, and provided for a very different outcome in the way of communication systems. As far as this case goes, I don’t agree with Comcast and the way they are going about their business. A customer, for the most part as someone else said, should be able to read what they want to on the internet.
This topic is pretty new to me. I find it interesting and not at suprising how groups are fighting for control of the internet. i do believe in free speech but to a point. I do think there are a few things that should be blocked or prohibited on the internet. These would mainly be items, which are considered illegal. The FCC does seem to have a lot of rules and regulations but some entity must have a little control to make sure everything is in order. I do find it interesting that Comcast would want to prohibit some stuff, I wonder what all of it is? All in all it was an interesting article and has opened my eyes a bit more to the topic.
Tiffany, you bring up an interesting point. What *should” be blocked? This is another big debate out there. In this case though, Comcast was blocking sites because of the bandwidth they took up, and not the content themselves.
I completely agree with Jaycie. It is extremely ridiculous. I will be honest an say that I don’t know much about this topic or providers like Comcast, but after learning a little from this, I’m glad it didn’t pass and also wonder why they didn’t present their case a little better if this is such a big deal…
“Side note: You have to control people to not control people.”
There is always a higher authority. And at the top, there has to be shared powers with accountability. It is unfortunate that the FCC lost this case. Though I realize there are tons of organizations that indirectly affect the content that I recieve on any given day, I don’t like knowing that the content I find on the internet, a tool I increasingly rely on more and more, will be dictated by something other than me. I know it’s probably way more involved in my life than I realize, but maybe my ignorance is bliss.
My distaste for the FCC aside, it seems unconstitutional to deny people access to certain sites. If you refuse the proper authorities the power to do their job, you’re setting a dangerous precedent. The power of information rests with those who control it.
My distaste for the FCC aside, it seems unconstitutional to deny people access to certain sites, while allowing access to others. By not giving the proper authorities the power to do their job, you’re setting a dangerous precedent. Not to say anything about the control over information Comcast and similar companies possess. After all, the power of information rests with those who control it.
Abby,
This is a new topic for me and I’m glad someone is bringing it to my attention. Like most people I didn’t even know this was going on, which makes it even more awful. I don’t understand why ISP’s would want to do this other than to get some sort of payout by companies using it for advertising, but wouldn’t that somehow be illegal? For them to control what information you are seeing and not allowing you to see all the options has got to be against some law out there…
Frakly, this issue freaks me out a bit. The Interet has been the only source of information, available to everyone, that is free from any type of gatekeepers. It seems like Comcast is tryig to change that. Regardles of the intet, no one should have that kind of power. And who are they to deem what content is appropriate or inappropriate for their customers? I mean, if there were a way to prevet people from looking up how to make bombs, that would be great… as long as it can be guaranteed that next it won’t block access to information from a political party, or religious organization, or etc. etc. A free and open Internet is’t optional for a democratic society.