Earlier this year, the United Nations issued a report calling Internet access a basic human right. This came a year after Finland guaranteed its citizens access to broadband Internet. It is regrettable that the United States cannot be on the cutting edge of the movement to grant unparalleled access to knowledge and information to all its citizens, but this lag can be traced to some parties in the nation who still are disputing net neutrality, a virtual necessity for access to the Internet's social benefits.
Though it is rarely discussed outside of technology circles, net neutrality is an issue with massive implications. The basic principle behind 'net neutrality' is that Internet traffic should be treated equally, regardless of type or content. Net neutrality advocates are opposed to the idea of Internet service providers such as Comcast, Verizon or AT&T monitoring or blocking access to content they might find objectionable, or dividing the Internet into tiers that slow down users who pay less than the premium price.
Neutrality, they say, will help keep the Internet an open and innovative space while maintaining competition between ISPs. Government regulation is necessary to preserve this balance, so advocates have asked for the Federal Communications Commission to step in and regulate the activities of the nation's telecommunications giants. It is not an unpopular position: President Obama is recorded as supporting net neutrality efforts as far back as 2007 and has acted fairly consistently toward that end since his election.
Last December, the FCC adopted the Open Internet Order, demanding transparency and prohibiting blocking or unreasonable discrimination of traffic from ISPs. Some net neutrality advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, however, criticized this compromise and stated that the regulation fails to address several major problems.
While the implications of this current order have yet to be recognized, it also has provoked net neutrality's standard opponents. House Republicans, far friendlier to the interests of the huge telecom corporations than to consumers, have planned to overturn the regulation through legislation, but a Democrat-controlled Senate and the sitting president make that unlikely to succeed. If anything is going to reverse the recent gain, therefore, it will be court challenges. Virginia Attorney General and University alumnus Ken Cuccinelli has stepped in, as he tends to do, going so far as to say the FCC's order constitutes the "most egregious of all violations of federal law." His office is planning on filing a lawsuit against the regulations.
A central conservative talking point is that net neutrality is a "federal power grab," an attempt to seize control of the Internet. This seems odd when one considers net neutrality advocates want regulation to keep the Internet open and free, but the "power grab" angle remains good for scaring up support. Many so-called "free market" organizations promote this line, such as FreedomWorks, a nonprofit sponsored by the billionaire Koch brothers. The libertarian Kochs often have been accused of "astroturfing," that is using their immense wealth to fund huge political operations that then are dressed up to look like they are "grassroots" movements driven by average citizens.
So, the visible opposition to net neutrality is made up of three main factions. First, fiercely ideological billionaires who stand against almost any regulation. Second, huge companies such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T that stand to gain if they can block less profitable but data-intensive traffic. And last but certainly not least, career politicians such as Cuccinelli who stand to score big political points by attacking Obama's so-called Internet takeover.
What happens if this opposition succeeds? Everybody who cannot afford premium connections will have to deal with lagging speeds and, depending on the telecoms' fiscal analyses, blocked access to certain websites or types of content. Connection quality may improve for premium customers if the companies reinvest their new profits in more high-speed cable, but the "lesser" customers will have to suffer to make it possible.
The United States might not be ready to consider the Internet a human right, but it at least should recognize the importance of providing quality access to such a vast sum of knowledge to common citizens, the masters of democracy. It may be an obscure issue today, but if the anti-regulation lobby succeeds it will be a massive mistake tomorrow.
Sam Carrigan is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
