Login
  • 10

Net Neutrality is Not Dead, Yet

A Senate vote today shows that the fight is not over.

Today a bill passed the Senate that would reinstate the net neutrality rules put in place by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2015, and block a change that’s supposed to take effect on June 11. Under the current Obama era rules, internet providers have to provide equal access to all content at the same speeds, the internet under these rules is neutral.

In December of last year under Trump the FCC voted to repeal these regulations and allow providers to block or slow certain content and or charge for certain content to be at provided at higher speed. When these rules take effect next month providers can give preference to their own content or that of partner companies, and functionally limit the access that people have to content from competitor companies. The bill up for a vote today would nullify the FCC’s 2017 vote and keep the current net neutrality regulations in place.

The movement of this bill today is meaningful for a few reasons. First, it got some unexpected Republican support. All Senate Democrats and Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine are known to support net neutrality and predictably voted to pass the bill, but so did Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and John Kennedy (R-Louisiana). This shows that there are some cracks in the Republican bulwark against net neutrality.

Passing this bill also gives Representatives in the House an opportunity to let voters know where they stand. Because this is an issue that impacts people’s day-to-day lives in a very real way it is expected to be a key point during the midterm elections this year, especially for younger voters. If the bill gets a hearing in the House a lot of voters will be watching very closely to see how their elected official votes and this could be a tipping point in tight elections. However, the passage through the Senate is unfortunately not as significant a win as many would hope. There is a good chance that the bill will not even get a hearing in the House, and if it does it’s unlikely to pass. And even if it does clear those hurdles the White House has not shown any inclination that it will get signed.

Even if the bill does pass and does get signed into law it doesn’t really fix the issue of net neutrality. This particular bill just uses the Congressional Review Act to cancel the FCC’s December vote. This is not a law to mandate net neutrality. The FCC will ultimately still have the power to cancel or change net neutrality again in future. When the FCC voted to change the rules last December there was public outcry and disappointment. In response several of the largest internet providers pledged to maintain net neutrality for legal content even after the rules expire in June. But there is nothing compelling them to actually do that once the rules are gone, especially given how few choices most people have for internet providers.

The internet may not be a utility in the same sense that water or electricity are, but it has become essential for education, finding and applying for jobs, accessing information, and a million other things. It no longer makes sense to leave its functionality in the hands of either the providers or the FCC, which is non-elected body. Whether or not today’s bill goes the distance and saves net neutrality for now, we still need laws to actually codify it for the future.

One could hope!

Alexis, another great piece! I wish I could get onboard with you on this, but I can't. Maybe you could respond to my doubts and win me over :) My problem with the "Net" being a utility and regulated like one is that I lived through the telephone company monopoly. Once it went away, amazing innovation happened. In fact, many of the features of mobile phones was available decades before they were introduced because of the "Phone Company" monopoly. I know that no one likes big corporations that run cable services, but they have spearheaded the techno world we live in. The other thing that bothers me about Net Neutrality is the creeping government role in it. Here is what Sen. kennedy (R. LA) said to defend his vote to restore the Obama era order: Kennedy told the Washington Post that his decision was difficult. But it ultimately came down to a question of who to trust. “If you trust your cable company, you’re not going to like my vote today,” he told the paper “If you don’t trust your cable company, you will.” Geez...he all but says:" I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Really? So those are our choices. If I have to choose it's less regs and more innovation. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

1

I agree 100% with this. Unfortunately laws like this will always be subject to change on the whims of the elected. The utility of the internet is one that has become part of the fabric of our society. Much like the telephone service we depend on it for our lives. When telephones were deregulated and 'free market' principles were invited in during the early 2000's many smaller companies couldn't compete. It was a disaster if you look at the facts and not opinions. Keeping the internet controlled for public use is a smart idea and one that history, facts, and observations tell us will work.

To what purpose do we have this bill though if it doesn't help solve the problem at all! It would be a complete waste of time then. Congress should pass something that would last centuries

I agree that the internet cannot be regulated exactly like other utilities, but removing net neutrality doesn't do anything to prevent monopolies by internet service providers. There were functional internet monopolies in large areas of the country before these rules went into effect in 2015, they still exists, and they'll continue to exist in June whether or not net neutrality ends. I think a lot of the debate about this has centered around the theoretical idea of regulate or don't regulate, whereas in this instance I think it would be more practical to just focus on this specific issue. Should internet service providers be allowed to block or slow certain content? Is there any benefit in terms of development that can come from this? Is there any possible benefit for consumers? I think the answer to all of these is no.

I agree Gabby that it would be better if they could pass something more permanent, even though, as Pat pointed out any law can be changed. I think the answer to your question is that the Senate passed this because it's something they could pass that, if it becomes law, will protect net neutrality for now by rolling back the FCC rules. Passing this kind of bill only takes a simple majority. Passing a bill that actually makes net neutrality a law, rather than an FCC rule, would take more votes, and there is not enough Republican support in the Senate for that. It's also, as I kind of alluded to, a bit of political theater in time for the 2018 elections. Politicians who support net neutrality want their constituents to know where they stand on the issue, and where their opponents stand. Forcing a vote makes it hard to hide behind rhetoric.

That makes sense Alexis. I want freedom on the internet too. These Republicans are perhaps just afraid of the power of the internet. The people though are clamoring for net neutrality not against it. It is bipartisan http://fortune.com/2017/12/13/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-survey/ Only the old GOP crooks are against it

Vote the Republicans out! They don't represent the people anymore but business interests

Stories