In the USA, the controversial issue of net neutrality is once again being discussed. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved this Thursday a proposal to restore what it calls the protections of an open Internet for consumers and businesses. Net neutrality prevents fixed and mobile broadband operators from blocking content or discriminating against the speed of access to it. The FCC is also proposing to regulate Internet access as an essential telecommunications service subject to stricter oversight and regulation, in a regulation that operators oppose.
The FCC protected the principle of net neutrality in 2015, during Barack Obama’s presidency. With Donald Trump entering the White House and Republican dominance of the FCC board, the regulator decided to abolish it in 2017. The worst omens that were formulated at the time were that the Internet would be discriminatory for rich and poor, or even the end of the Internet, as it was called, which was never fulfilled. There have already been experts who have pointed out that these catastrophe predictions are somewhat exaggerated.
In reality, users already have different access rates depending on download speed, data limit and other factors. The concept of net neutrality poses the question of whether broadband providers can discriminate against the content of platforms like Netflix or YouTube or demand payment in return for high-quality access to their content, which takes up a large portion of the network’s capacity. It’s a traditional battle for operators who complain that they have to make the network investments that take advantage of these free broadcast services (known as OTT, over-the-top). In practice, nothing has changed for the average user since the regulation was changed six years ago. Operators could not risk discriminating against this content without violating competition law.
The proposal to restore the principle of net neutrality was approved by the FCC board by a vote of three to two, with Democratic support and Republican opposition. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, appointed by President Joe Biden, defended in a speech in Washington a few weeks ago that the pandemic has made it very clear that broadband is not a luxury but a necessity and that she believes it is needed stricter regulation and supervision. “It is essential infrastructure for modern life. Without it, no one has a chance of being successful in the 21st century. “We need broadband to reach 100% of us and we need it fast, open and fair,” he said.
“Internet access is now access to everything,” he continued. “And common sense tells us that the country’s top communications regulator must be strong enough to protect consumers and ensure their internet access is fast, open and fair. (…) The Covid pandemic has shown us with painful clarity how important access to broadband is in modern life,” he argued.
Instead, Republicans criticize the proposal as “a solution in search of a problem.” Republican-appointed FCC Secretary Brendan Barr was highly critical of the proposal, which he defines as “President Biden’s plan to increase government control over the Internet.” “When my FCC colleagues and I voted in 2017 to repeal the Obama administration’s two-year failed experiment, activists and politicians alike assured the American public that the internet would literally collapse. They predicted that broadband prices would skyrocket, that you would be charged for every website you wanted to visit, and that the Internet itself would slow down. Did any of these predictions come true? Of course not,” he said in a statement.
Barr argues that since the FCC’s 2017 decision, broadband speeds in the United States have increased, prices have fallen, competition has increased, new investments in broadband have broken records and the digital divide has closed. “The internet isn’t broken and the FCC doesn’t need it [la nueva regulación] to fix the problem,” he concludes.
The 129-page proposal, submitted for public consultation, aims, according to the FCC, to restore open, clear and national internet standards that prevent ISPs from blocking legal content, throttling speeds and creating fast lanes that favor those who can pay access. But it not only enshrines the principle of network neutrality, but also subjects the actions of operators in the broadband market to the regulation and supervision of the FCC. Seeks comments on the classification of fixed and mobile broadband Internet services as essential “telecommunications” services under Title II of the Communications Act.
The FCC maintains that without Title II authority, no federal agency can effectively monitor or assist broadband outages that threaten employment, education, health, and safety. “While the FCC can address telephone service outages following natural disasters and work to ensure the resiliency of these networks before they occur, it lacks authority over broadband networks, which can leave communities across the country starved of resources when they do “The internet service they need for critical purposes fails,” he argues.
To avoid accusations of excessive interventionism, the FCC proposes to refrain from enforcing 26 Title II provisions and more than 700 Commission rules, which would prohibit the FCC from enforcing policies such as rate regulation and network disaggregation, among other things.
Companies don’t trust him. “Currently, the free market determines the price that Internet access operators charge for the service. However, under the proposed rules, the FCC would have the authority to determine whether tariffs are “fair and reasonable” and to require companies to change prices. There cannot be a clearer description of rate regulation,” Michael Powell, president of NCTA, an association that brings together major operators such as Comcast and Charter, said in a statement.
Powell calls the proposal “the most radical command and control framework ever introduced for broadband networks” and says it represents a monumental change in the way the internet is regulated and will have a dramatic impact on how it operates going forward . “Today a company can freely enter the market to offer a competitive service. However, from now on, you will need permission from the FCC to enter and expand your service area, and you will even need permission to exit the market. “This makes the FCC the arbiter of broadband expansion, innovation and market competition,” he argues.
The NCTA contends that Congress is the only agency that can give the FCC the authority to make such major changes to Internet regulation. It is more than likely that companies will ultimately appeal the new regulation to the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority has already voted to limit the regulatory powers of state authorities.
You can follow EL PAÍS technology on Facebook and X or sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.