sign in sign up
<<
Home , Net neutrality

Lone Star College-Montgomery Center for Civic Engagement Visit our : lonestar.edu/MontgomeryCivicEngagement Follow us on : @CCE_LSCM

Net Neutrality Info Sheet

What is Net Neutrality? The regulation that compels “ providers to treat all traffic the same regardless of source” ( v. Federal Commission, 2014, p. 3).

What is the Issue? The basic issue is the changing of Internet Service Providers (I.S.P.s) from falling under Title II to falling under Title I of the Federal Communications Commission’s (F.C.C.) Communications Act of 1934. Prior to 2015 they were categorized as Title I. In 2015, the FCC changed that categorization, and I.S.P.s currently fall under Title II. By categorizing ISPs under Title II, it allows the F.C.C. to provide more oversight of the practices of I.S.P.s, including guaranteeing net neutrality. This is because a Title II categorization means that I.S.P.s are public utilities, and that the F.C.C. can enforce regulations over them, such as the requirement that they must provide open and equal access to all . A Title I classification does not allow for the F.C.C. to enforce such regulations, as shown in Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission (2014). It was this case that spurred the change in categorization in 2015 of ISPs to Title II. This case challenged the ability of the F.C.C. in regulating net neutrality, and was found in favor of Verizon due to the F.C.C. categorization. With the new categorization, net neutrality regulations are currently allowed.

Arguments FOR Keeping Net Neutrality Regulations: Net neutrality regulations prohibit I.S.P.s “from stopping or slowing down the delivery of ” and from “charging customers extra fees for high-quality streaming and other services” (Kang, 2017, para. 2). This essentially keeps I.S.P.s from being a gatekeeper as to what you can and cannot access via the internet. Supporters of net neutrality argue that the regulations are good for consumers and provide them protections from I.S.P.s. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (June 2017) argues that it is an issue of free speech. Without net neutrality, I.S.P.s can restrict the of its users and that being able to access any website is essential to our ability to be informed and participate in the exercise of our free speech rights. The ACLU (2017) also points to several instances, before 2015, where I.S.P.s did interfere with internet access. AT&T censored a speech being given by Pearl Jam in 2007 during a concert they were responsible for streaming online. They shut off the sound, despite the fact that the political statement Eddie Vedder was making not having any profanity. Also that year, blocked legal file transfers from specific websites that shared videos for free during a time they were investigating in selling online videos. Verizon censored NARAL, a prochoice organization, by cutting off their “access to a text- messaging program” used to send texts to supporters in 2007 as well. Finally, in 2005 blocked their subscribers from accessing a website run by the union that was on strike against them. Net neutrality regulations prevent these types of violations from occurring.

Arguments AGAINST Keeping Net Neutrality Regulations: I.S.P.s argue that these rules “prevent them offering customers a wider selection of services at higher and lower price points” (Kang, 2017, para. 3). The F.C.C. Chairman, , states that “broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion” after the regulations were established in 2015 (F.C.C., 2017, para. 8). His claim is that these regulations are hurting the economy and investment in innovation. He also argues that these regulations harm small I.S.P.s from entering into the market, creating more competition, which he argues is better for consumers. According to Josh Steimle (2014), a Forbes online contributor, net neutrality legislation decreases competition, and most opponents of these regulations agree. While he agrees with the other side in that large I.S.P.s have too much power, he feels as though this is because of these regulations. The argument is that legislation is written by large corporate interests and cannot be trusted to actually decrease their power instead of increase it. He is also against the U.S. government monitoring Internet traffic because he feels it undermines his right to privacy, and that “free speech cannot exist without privacy” (Steimle, 2014, para. 6). Finally, supporters of this change argue that the “worst case scenarios” being presented by the other side, are just that: scenarios. Pai states that there would not be free reign with the change, as “the FCC would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate” (F.C.C., November 21, 2017, para. 4).

What You Can Do:

Comment directly to the F.C.C. on the proposed changes: Go to: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express  Under Proceeding(s) Type: 17-108  Enter your name, e-mail, and address  Under brief comments type: o For Net Neutrality Regulations: I support continuing categorizing I.S.P.s under Title II because… o Against Net Neutrality Regulations: I support the change in categorization of I.S.P.s to fall under Title I because…

Contact your Senators & Representatives:  Senators: o John Cornyn | (202) 224-2934 | www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact o | (202) 224-5922 | www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=form&id=16  Representatives: visit https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative & type in your zip code to find your representative.  When giving your comments state: o For Net Neutrality Regulations: I support continuing categorizing I.S.P.s under Title II because… o Against Net Neutrality Regulations: I support the change in categorization of I.S.P.s to fall under Title I because…

References: American Civil Liberties Union (June 2017). What is net neutrality? [website]. Retrieved from: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/internet- speech/what-net-neutrality Federal Communications Commission. (1934). Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq). Retrieved from: https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf Federal Communications Commission. (May 23, 2017). In the matter of restoring internet freedom (WC Docket No. 17-108). Retrieved from: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-60A1.pdf Federal Communications Commission. (November 21, 2017). Chairman Pai circulates draft order to restore internet freedom and eliminate heavy- handed internet regulations (press release). Retrieved from: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1121/DOC- 347868A1.pdf Kang, C. (Nov. 21, 2017). F.C.C. plans net neutrality repeal in a victory for telecoms. [online news]. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html Federal Communications Commission (2017). Oral statement of chairman Ajit Pai [transcript]. Retrieved from: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344948A2.pdf Steimle, J. (May 14, 2014). Am I the only techie against net neutrality? Forbes [online magazine]. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/#15c0777a70d5 Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission. USCA Case #11-1355; Document #1474943. (2014). Retrieved from: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-325150A1.pdf