Net neutrality is back. And so is the battle over it.
Old internet rules are being reinstated, but the internet has changed since last time
Net neutrality used to be a thing. Then it wasn't. Now it is again. The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted to restore the Obama-era internet regulations known as "net neutrality," The New York Times said, after they were repealed during the Trump Administration. The controversial new-old rules aim to prevent internet service providers "from blocking or degrading the delivery of services from competitors like Netflix and YouTube." Net neutrality means all internet users should have unrestricted access to web content.
Will internet users see a difference? Probably not. Net neutrality's "reinstatement isn't expected to noticeably change users' online experience," said The Associated Press, thanks largely to state-level net neutrality rules passed before the federal repeal. But supporters said it is important to enshrine the principle, and that the "company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet," said the advocacy group Public Knowledge.
Critics believe the new rules "solve a problem that has not been particularly pervasive," said The Hill. When the original net neutrality rules were overturned in 2017, there were predictions that providers like Comcast and Xfinity would "throttle" (aka slow down on purpose) services like YouTube for competitive or financial reasons. That didn't happen. "None of the apocalyptic predictions came to pass," said Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. But this doesn't mean the fight is over: The FCC's move is "likely to prompt lawsuits from industry groups," The Hill said.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
'How the internet has always worked'
"Why does the FCC need this power?" The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial. It's already the case that providers "don't block, throttle or charge more to speed up sites." The new rules, however, give the FCC "sweeping political control over the internet." The truth is that there is "no legal, economic or equity justification" for reimposing net neutrality regulations. The new rules instead are "about asserting political control over more of the private economy — no matter the consequences."
The new rules establish that the FCC has the authority "to step in when internet service providers are blocking or interfering with the free flow of information online," Craig Aaron said at The Seattle Times. Telecom companies will challenge the rule, even though polls say net neutrality rules are popular on "the political left, right and center." Americans have come to expect internet service without throttling or other gatekeeping imposed by providers. "Net neutrality is so necessary because it's how the internet has always worked," Aaron added.
One complication: The internet of 2024 is different from the internet of the Obama Administration. Now the question of where the internet "begins and ends has become murkier," The Washington Post said. The online world has moved from desktops to phones and a "growing number of items connected to the internet, from robot vacuum cleaners to entire factories." The new rules allow "fast lanes" for enterprise services, and critics say that might create a loophole "large enough to exempt a significant chunk of the internet from regulation."
Spam texts, AI also regulated
Thursday's vote goes beyond net neutrality. The measure "redefined internet service as similar to legacy telephone lines," CNN said, giving the FCC more power to regulate "spam robotexts, internet outages, digital privacy and expanding high-speed internet access." FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said the measure would also keep providers from selling consumer data or using it to train artificial intelligence models.
Advocates insist that greater reach is necessary because the internet has become so much more pervasive, and home access to it so much more necessary following COVID-19. "The landscape of communications dynamics shifted violently for U.S. workers in the post-pandemic era," said Wired, but Americans in most communities have little control over the quality of internet services they receive because there are so few providers — they're "locked" into a "de facto monopoly." Americans "need broadband to reach 100% of us," Rosenworcel said, "and we need it fast, open and fair."
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a freelance writer who has spent nine years as a syndicated columnist, co-writing the RedBlueAmerica column as the liberal half of a point-counterpoint duo. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic, The Kansas City Star and Heatmap News. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
What does the Green Party stand for?
The Explainer The party's growing prominence has sparked Labour into action ahead of the general election
By Richard Windsor, The Week UK Published
-
'Israeli officers chafe over lack of postwar plan'
Today's Newspapers A roundup of the headlines from the US front pages
By The Week Staff Published
-
Will Russian advance in Kharkiv prove decisive in Ukraine war?
Today's Big Question Recent gains in northeast could be 'a momentary setback' or a 'turning point', as Kyiv counts the cost of US delay
By Elliott Goat, The Week UK Published
-
Is it 1968 all over again?
Talking Point Why campus protests could spoil Democrats' hopes for November
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Is the Supreme Court about to criminalize homelessness?
Talking Points The court will decide if bans on outdoor camping are 'cruel and unusual'
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Myanmar: the Spring Revolution and the downfall of the generals
Talking Point An armed protest movement has swept across the country since the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi was overthrown in 2021
By The Week Staff Published
-
Have we entered the age of AI warfare?
Today's Big Question Israeli military used AI to create 'kill lists' of suspected Hamas militants, say local media
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
'There's no ceiling on how popular women's sports can be'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
It's not really about Biden's brain — unless it is
Talking Points Depending on who you ask, the renewed focus on the president's mental acuity is an election-year distraction, a legitimate point of concern, and sometimes both
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
The politics of music: should political rallies use well-known songs?
Talking Point The Smiths star Johnny Marr is latest musician to object to use of his music at a Donald Trump rally
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Cop 28 verdict: are climate summits working?
Talking Point Global leaders are not fully committed to averting the climate crisis, say critics
By The Week Staff Published