Net Neutrality Threatened by Corporate Powers

The debate on net neutrality is one of the biggest political issues currently affecting the United States. Net neutrality is the principle that protects the free internet, so that companies are not allowed to divide up access to different websites into packages and charge consumers more. Without net neutrality, cable providers would be able to restrict access to certain websites unless consumers pay for a certain internet package. For example, (add the possible bundles here). This means that users must pay more for services. Furthermore, if a network carrier, such as Verizon, had a deal with Amazon, the carrier could potentially make Amazon much easier and faster to use than Ebay, Etsy, or other similar websites. The carrier could also sell data gathered from consumers on their sites to third parties without client permission.

Title One and Two of the Communications Act of 1934 currently prevents this abuse of information control under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which supervises what these companies do. Internet providers are classified under Title Two of the Act, which enforces strong rules and include provisions that do not allow providers to show favouritism to websites, make bundles that will increase prices, or disclose consumer information.

Internet providers were placed under Title Two in 2014 after the Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission case, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC didn’t have the authority to oversee and limit Verizon’s interference with its customers’ professional connections. The Supreme Court advised the FCC to classify internet providers under the jurisdiction of Title Two. This way, the rules for and supervision of internet providers could be more strict. The FCC did exactly what the Supreme Court suggested. However, under the Trump Administration, Ajit Pai, the new chairman of the FCC, a previous lawyer for Verizon and outspoken opponent of net neutrality, may move internet providers back under Title One, which is much more lax.

The only way to stop politicians’ unsupportiveness of net neutrality is to speak out against it and bring awareness to this issue. For example, on the FCC website there is a filing page where the public can give their input, but is almost laughably hard to access. Therefore, Comedian John Oliver bought the web address gofccyourself.com, which automatically redirects to the filing page. All the user has to do is press “Express” and fill in the blanks to state an opinion in the radically separated political climate today. Furthermore, as students, we should start and continue these conversations in and out of our classrooms, so that we can be aware of what is happening in our society. Although it may seem like individual people may not have much of an affect on political decisions, if we collectively speak out and take a stand for net neutrality, the more widespread application of this principle could potentially be one of the turns of the century.