The Internet is Temporarily Saved (Partially) from
Profiteers and Fear-Mongers
By Adam Weber
March 20th, 2015
The Internet is a haven of
information, freedom, speech and expression never before seen in this
world. With it, students can research
papers and projects, a mom can design T-shirts in her living room, civil violations
by government officials can be exposed and documented, and activism can reach
from small regional avenues to become global movements. However, a very small collection of
conglomerate corporations are determined to purchase the controlling shares of
that power. They are willing to spend
whatever dollar amount is necessary to undermine the global phenomenon that the
Internet is. These corporations crave
the control of the Internet that would limit access and delivery of content and
information based on their bottom line.
This is why Net Neutrality is one of the most important issues to arise
in the technological age, and why Net Neutrality must be preserved despite the
misinformation from crony politicians.
In economic terms, there has not
been a more universally useful tool to businesses, small, large, local or
global than the Internet. The Internet
can be referred to as a great equalizer in regards to the low barrier to entry,
consumer feedback, instant contact with both consumers and employees, and as a
tool to be used to leverage bargaining power of the consumer against the
bargaining power of the suppliers and the retailers. As Senator Marco Rubio would put it, “[The Internet]
has become a thriving exhibition of the power of free people operating in a free
market to create prosperity and opportunity.”
Yet, he actively campaigns against the Internet being free.
However, the Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) have begun to undermine that freedom by charging other businesses
extra money to allow data from the other businesses to flow through the ISPs to
their customers. This is an underhanded
filthy attempt to extort companies, especially ones that base their entire
business model on Internet connectivity.
In doing such, these ISPs have started the process to create both fast
lanes for those willing to pay the extra tolls, and slow lanes to punish those
that will not be bullied or extorted by the ISPs.
Additionally, some ISPs, either
as mobile or desktop broadband providers, sought to outright block certain
content and throttle certain content.
That content included Bittorrent and encryption, both only to a certain extent,
yet, they were blocked or throttled. That type of power cannot be a purchased
power, and private companies cannot be tolerated to only disallow content that
they perceive as dangerous to their control over media and connectivity. Obviously, illegal content should not be
permitted, and that caveat is also addressed in the Open Internet rules from
the FCC.
There is fear-mongering stating
that foreign governments are using the Net Neutrality ruling to gain
international control over the Internet.
Nothing could be further from the truth regarding the control of the Internet. Certain oppressive regimes would love to have their power enhanced by control of the Internet,
but as we have seen throughout the last few decades, freedom prevails in these
instances. We get videos uploaded from
Iran, we get tweets from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we even get content out
of China and Russia. This idea is
nothing more than paranoia. However,
corporations are watching the government closely, because they cannot wait to seize
power at the first instance of weakness.
Being uninformed and contentious regarding Net Neutrality is weakness
that these ISPs and other media corporations will capitalize on.
The importance of the Internet
makes this issue one of the most important issues of this age. While other systems of American government
need to be updated, addressed, or removed, everyone must start somewhere, and
with the penalty for allowing the ISPs this unregulated power being so high, it
was necessary to address it immediately.
In 2014, the case of Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal
Communications Commission stated that since ISPs were not identified as
common carriers, they could not be held to the same standard as common
carriers. In addition, the FCC proposed
other much more beneficial (to the corporations) plans to regulate the ISPs and
corporate interests, but none of them were adopted. This is the reason for the reclassification;
basically, the ISPs became too greedy for power.
Net Neutrality is known as The
Open Internet Order and is an eight page document of information reclassifying
ISPs to common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act first written
in 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Any provisions that are not relevant to the
reclassification to common carriers are legally prevented from being enforced
under the Order. The rest of the Order
is supporting documentation from the Acts that has been in writing all along.
The power to make this
reclassification comes from the fact that the FCC is a board that consists of
five commissioners appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and
granted authority by Congressional statute 47 U.S. Code Sections 151 and
154. Despite even more fear-mongering
and misinforming coming from Open Internet dissenters, the five commissioners
are all legally granted power to regulate communications by radio, television,
wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S.
territories. They are not unelected bureaucrats,
they are appointed and confirmed commissioners.
The Internet began as a public
good, a public service, controlled by the government, and used for the
government. Since that beginning as
ARPANET, the Internet has turned into a truly magnificent human creation, and
it is nearly unstoppable in scope and measure.
However, we have an obligation to continue to utilize the Internet in a
free and open manor. That includes
preventing corporations from extorting money from small businesses,
non-profits, religious group, anti-religious groups, or anyone or any entity
engaged in expression. Since the government
is the representative body of the people, it is the responsibility of the
government to ensure that this freedom is protected.
