Future Trends
As of late 2014 the future of net neutrality remains undecided despite many ongoing discussions that are currently shaping the landscape for future decisions. In April 2014, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a proposal to allow for Internet “fast-lanes”, thereby essentially attacking, as some contend, the idea of an open and neutral Internet. The fast-lane concept is divisive for net neutrality proponents and opponents because it creates a scenario where Internet service and data is not treated equally. The resulting concern from the proposal is thus: entities such as large corporations and businesses are able to pay Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for higher speeds and because they have more money to do so, they would be offered premium content. Ultimately this does not treat content or service fairly and equally because entities that cannot pay the premium price cannot access or provide the same quality or service. At worst, any given ISP could create its own management rules and exclude certain services or types of content using different tiers based on their on criteria. On a practical level this is especially concerning for libraries, individuals, and entities for whom finances are not as flexible as a much larger corporation or entity, but of course the even more grave side of the issue is that such a outcome carries the potential to suppress entrepreneurship, creativity, the free sharing of information, intellectual freedom, and democracy. The FCC proposal was received with widespread condemnation from politicians, tech companies, and grass-roots start-ups and the backlash led the FCC to reconsider options and move forward with more thorough consideration.
Many of the subsequent considerations and discussions have included more meaningful legal, journalistic, and investigative efforts into the potential effects of creating a system of fast lanes and slow lanes, as well as other options. FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, has softened his stance, stating that an open Internet is essential but simultaneously maintains his position in support of a tiered system, saying that the greatest task at hand is to fuse the two seemingly disparate concepts.
Perhaps the most significant piece of the issue which remains to be settled is the way broadband is classified. The President of the United States along with other prominent U.S. politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, have urged for broadband to be classified as a utility under Title II of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (Sasso, 2014). This reclassification would allow the FCC to regulate broadband companies and prevent the prioritization of services but is a decision that ISPs would not readily accept. From the legal standpoint, the most current developments rest in the hands of the FCC as they will possibly try to develop a hybrid approach such as the one that discussed in Ev Erlich's article regarding compromised solutions: “the FCC should attempt to implement ‘neutrality’ regulations requiring Title 11 status, but under a different provision of the 1996 Act if that couldn't withstand legal challenge, then the FCC would be granted "backup" Title 11 authority and seek forbearance to pick and choose which parts of Title 11 apply” (Erlich, 2014). This hybrid approach may ultimately take into account the nature of the beast which splits the issue into content and transmission, a discussion which in the current climate has not been thoroughly explored (Eggerton, 2014).
The fact is that the future of net neutrality hangs in a state of limbo. There are many eventualities at play but the future decisions of the FCC are at this point unknown and somewhat unpredictable. One near-certainty is that the any given decision will not be reached with ease or without a fight from either ISPs and/or the general public, as there is much at stake for either entity.
Many of the subsequent considerations and discussions have included more meaningful legal, journalistic, and investigative efforts into the potential effects of creating a system of fast lanes and slow lanes, as well as other options. FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, has softened his stance, stating that an open Internet is essential but simultaneously maintains his position in support of a tiered system, saying that the greatest task at hand is to fuse the two seemingly disparate concepts.
Perhaps the most significant piece of the issue which remains to be settled is the way broadband is classified. The President of the United States along with other prominent U.S. politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, have urged for broadband to be classified as a utility under Title II of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (Sasso, 2014). This reclassification would allow the FCC to regulate broadband companies and prevent the prioritization of services but is a decision that ISPs would not readily accept. From the legal standpoint, the most current developments rest in the hands of the FCC as they will possibly try to develop a hybrid approach such as the one that discussed in Ev Erlich's article regarding compromised solutions: “the FCC should attempt to implement ‘neutrality’ regulations requiring Title 11 status, but under a different provision of the 1996 Act if that couldn't withstand legal challenge, then the FCC would be granted "backup" Title 11 authority and seek forbearance to pick and choose which parts of Title 11 apply” (Erlich, 2014). This hybrid approach may ultimately take into account the nature of the beast which splits the issue into content and transmission, a discussion which in the current climate has not been thoroughly explored (Eggerton, 2014).
The fact is that the future of net neutrality hangs in a state of limbo. There are many eventualities at play but the future decisions of the FCC are at this point unknown and somewhat unpredictable. One near-certainty is that the any given decision will not be reached with ease or without a fight from either ISPs and/or the general public, as there is much at stake for either entity.