For the past ten years, since then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell introduced the four Internet Freedoms, we have lived in a de facto net neutrality state. Sure, there have been bumps in the road where corporate overreach temporarily compromised some service offerings, in limited instances. But in those handful of cases, regulators and our system of American jurisprudence stepped in, and, ultimately, the public Interest prevailed.
In my lifetime, substantial parts of the Internet have never been outright blocked, and the Net has been and will continue to be neutral (a very strange phrase, I might add, for such a dynamic ecosystem).
What, then, is all the fuss about last week's D.C. Circuit ruling in Verizon v. FCC?
The reality is that the decision struck a sort of equilibrium between regulatory and corporate interests, and the net effect is a benefit to consumers. The FCC has unequivocal authority to regulate broadband and Internet service providers in their provision of the same. What's more, its transparency rule - the one that says ISPs must publicly and prominently disclose their network management practices (like efforts to block or prioritize Internet traffic) in advance - was affirmed. For the record, the network management practices are what "net neutrality advocates" claim they're concerned about. At the same time, the D.C. Circuit vacated the parts of the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Rules that expressly call for non-discrimination and anti-blocking. The result: ISPs get to experiment with business models now, just like edge providers. Sponsored data anyone?
So what's the problem? Everyone seems to lose a little, win a lot in this decision. Yet, some folks are acting as if the Internet is broken (don't tell Al Gore, he wouldn't approve) and that we're headed toward a doomsday scenario.
Rhetoric aside, provided neither the FCC nor Verizon appeal last week's decision, we can safely say we're comfortably still in the net neutral zone we've been in for the past ten years.
But there is a bigger problem the Chicken Littles of the world fail to recognize. While we argue 'what ifs' about the injustices that could occur should our ISPs decide to go all 1984 George Orwell on us, nearly 100 million Americans still lack broadband access in their homes. That has nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with broadband adoption.
Depending on which statistics you use, fixed broadband connectivity is available to 95-98% of the country. Yet a full third of our population - mostly low-income, rural, or traditionally underserved communities (read: African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and poor Whites) - remain offline. Studies have shown, it's not just cost that keeps people offline, especially when programs like Internet Essentials and EveryoneOn (formerly Connect to Compete) offer broadband at starting prices of $9.95/month and computers for as low as $150.00.
What we have in this country is a broadband value proposition problem, and we've not yet done a good enough job of explaining to people just how and why broadband really matters to them. It's bigger than the question of 'whether I will be able to access the content of my choosing if XYZ Corp gets its way'. The answer is a resounding NO if you're not even connected to the baseline "information super highway."
Gaps in digital literacy and fear of technology still negatively impact too many people in our society, especially when you consider that the technology and telecommunications sectors of our economy account for a full one-sixth of the national GDP. If half the energy that's spent arguing problems of tech privilege was actually channeled toward awareness and education campaigns and training programs, we might actually be a more connected nation in which even the most economically disadvantaged among us would be situated to survive, succeed and thrive in life because broadband connectivity enables them to enhance their educational pursuits, obtain affordable healthcare, apply for better employment or receive much-needed job training, or build the latest app or widget that feeds both that secret entrepreneurial drive and the desire for personal wealth creation that so many of us hold near and dear to our hearts wrapped in dreams deferred that we never pursue because we don't know how or where to get started.
As someone who has always benefited from technology (I've had a computer since I was two; I even bare the distinction of having been bullied while attending Pine Tree Computer Camp at the age of four - though I'm not sure what it says about me that I was picked on by certified computer geeks), the thought of living a life without access to, and the ability to use, the latest technology seems unfathomable. And yet, I am very mindful of how fortunate I am, and just how much (and what) my privilege allows me to do, see, and believe.
Not that there's anything wrong with tying ourselves in knots with hyperbolic hypotheticals about what evil fate with befall the webernet and the world in the wake of the D.C. Circuit's latest decision. In fact, some of the jibber jabber has gotten quite creative and is downright entertaining in certain instances. But the reality is, on balance, net neutrality is safe and we can expect to see some innovation down the pike that could benefit consumers more than the skeptics might think. At best, all this chatter enhances our ability to be rhetorical, linguistic and legalistic gymnasts. At worst, we're continuing to distract ourselves from the issues that matter most. After all, the question of net neutrality is wholly obsolete to roughly 33% of America's population.
If we're really concerned about the fate of our country and the globe, then we'd stop fretting over the neutrality of the net and really focus our energy on improving its adoption.
In my lifetime, substantial parts of the Internet have never been outright blocked, and the Net has been and will continue to be neutral (a very strange phrase, I might add, for such a dynamic ecosystem).
What, then, is all the fuss about last week's D.C. Circuit ruling in Verizon v. FCC?
The reality is that the decision struck a sort of equilibrium between regulatory and corporate interests, and the net effect is a benefit to consumers. The FCC has unequivocal authority to regulate broadband and Internet service providers in their provision of the same. What's more, its transparency rule - the one that says ISPs must publicly and prominently disclose their network management practices (like efforts to block or prioritize Internet traffic) in advance - was affirmed. For the record, the network management practices are what "net neutrality advocates" claim they're concerned about. At the same time, the D.C. Circuit vacated the parts of the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Rules that expressly call for non-discrimination and anti-blocking. The result: ISPs get to experiment with business models now, just like edge providers. Sponsored data anyone?
So what's the problem? Everyone seems to lose a little, win a lot in this decision. Yet, some folks are acting as if the Internet is broken (don't tell Al Gore, he wouldn't approve) and that we're headed toward a doomsday scenario.
Rhetoric aside, provided neither the FCC nor Verizon appeal last week's decision, we can safely say we're comfortably still in the net neutral zone we've been in for the past ten years.
But there is a bigger problem the Chicken Littles of the world fail to recognize. While we argue 'what ifs' about the injustices that could occur should our ISPs decide to go all 1984 George Orwell on us, nearly 100 million Americans still lack broadband access in their homes. That has nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with broadband adoption.
Depending on which statistics you use, fixed broadband connectivity is available to 95-98% of the country. Yet a full third of our population - mostly low-income, rural, or traditionally underserved communities (read: African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and poor Whites) - remain offline. Studies have shown, it's not just cost that keeps people offline, especially when programs like Internet Essentials and EveryoneOn (formerly Connect to Compete) offer broadband at starting prices of $9.95/month and computers for as low as $150.00.
What we have in this country is a broadband value proposition problem, and we've not yet done a good enough job of explaining to people just how and why broadband really matters to them. It's bigger than the question of 'whether I will be able to access the content of my choosing if XYZ Corp gets its way'. The answer is a resounding NO if you're not even connected to the baseline "information super highway."
Gaps in digital literacy and fear of technology still negatively impact too many people in our society, especially when you consider that the technology and telecommunications sectors of our economy account for a full one-sixth of the national GDP. If half the energy that's spent arguing problems of tech privilege was actually channeled toward awareness and education campaigns and training programs, we might actually be a more connected nation in which even the most economically disadvantaged among us would be situated to survive, succeed and thrive in life because broadband connectivity enables them to enhance their educational pursuits, obtain affordable healthcare, apply for better employment or receive much-needed job training, or build the latest app or widget that feeds both that secret entrepreneurial drive and the desire for personal wealth creation that so many of us hold near and dear to our hearts wrapped in dreams deferred that we never pursue because we don't know how or where to get started.
As someone who has always benefited from technology (I've had a computer since I was two; I even bare the distinction of having been bullied while attending Pine Tree Computer Camp at the age of four - though I'm not sure what it says about me that I was picked on by certified computer geeks), the thought of living a life without access to, and the ability to use, the latest technology seems unfathomable. And yet, I am very mindful of how fortunate I am, and just how much (and what) my privilege allows me to do, see, and believe.
Not that there's anything wrong with tying ourselves in knots with hyperbolic hypotheticals about what evil fate with befall the webernet and the world in the wake of the D.C. Circuit's latest decision. In fact, some of the jibber jabber has gotten quite creative and is downright entertaining in certain instances. But the reality is, on balance, net neutrality is safe and we can expect to see some innovation down the pike that could benefit consumers more than the skeptics might think. At best, all this chatter enhances our ability to be rhetorical, linguistic and legalistic gymnasts. At worst, we're continuing to distract ourselves from the issues that matter most. After all, the question of net neutrality is wholly obsolete to roughly 33% of America's population.
If we're really concerned about the fate of our country and the globe, then we'd stop fretting over the neutrality of the net and really focus our energy on improving its adoption.