[The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the Alligator.]
In recent months, the media have amplified the existence of a number of supposed threats to the safety and well-being of ordinary Americans, most prominently Ebola and the terrorist group ISIS.
However, the media have, until recently, largely ignored a much more serious and relevant issue of direct importance to any American with an Internet connection: net neutrality. For a while, the debate over net neutrality has been carried out in relative obscurity, as the concept is lofty, laden with technical computer jargon and doesn’t seem to affect common people directly.
Basically, the conflict comes down to this: Should Internet access be treated as a utility or as a commodity?
The net neutrality debate exists because the companies that provide Internet access — which happen to also be cable companies — want to treat it as a commodity. These Internet service providers (ISPs) would like to commodify Internet access further by creating artificial “fast lanes,” or routes through which content providers (Netflix, Facebook, Reddit etc.) that are able and willing to pay the ISPs extra money can funnel their information. Those who don’t pay would get left behind, forced to either give in to the ISPs’ demands or completely disappear from view.
The implications of this policy go beyond an extra stuffing of cable executives’ pockets. This kind of control would allow the cable companies and ISPs to control the flow of content on the most incredible information-sharing system since the printing press.
And it isn’t far-fetched to see how ISPs could use this leverage to their nefarious benefits. Earlier this year, Comcast steadily declined its streaming speeds while in an intense legal battle with Netflix over fees. Once Netflix gave into Comcast’s demands, speeds went back up again.
With that in mind, it’s easy to see why supporting an open, free Internet should be a no-brainer for most folks. Unless the existence of your trust fund depends on ill-gotten cable profits, net neutrality is in your best interest and in the best interest of American society.
Right now, the Federal Communications Commission can’t fully enforce net neutrality. The Internet is still legally defined as an “information service,” which for our purposes can be defined as “not a utility.”
But people are working hard at changing this.
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has been working on a solution for some time and is expected to reach a final proposal soon. Wheeler was a cable lobbyist before his appointment as FCC chairman, so the likelihood of the FCC classifying Internet access as a utility is low. Instead, Wheeler will likely propose some kind of middle ground in an attempt to placate both sides of the debate.
On Monday, President Obama issued a statement formally coming out in favor of net neutrality. While the announcement — like many such statements in the past — was mostly empty posturing that could’ve come a lot sooner, it still carries weight.
It’s possible that with his influence within the government and his own party waning, the president feels vaguely responsible for how the Internet will look after he leaves office.
Sen. Ted Cruz already tweeted a negative response to Obama’s statement, calling net neutrality the “Obamacare of the Internet.” This comparison would barely make sense to someone completely ignorant of what these two things mean. Cruz’s ignorance exemplifies the threat posed to net neutrality, not only by politicians whose campaigns were funded by Comcast, but also the voters who support them.
Alec Carver is a UF history sophomore. His columns appear on Thursdays.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 11/13/2014]
