by Charles Miller

In some long-awaited news from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 2, it seems that the issue of net neutrality has been settled, in the U.S. and at least for the time being. The court ruled that internet companies should not be regulated like public utilities, a decision which limits the government's ability to regulate the private companies that make up the internet.

In the U.S. the governance of the internet has been vacillating chaos as regulators schemed to apply the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet that did not even exist 90 years ago. That 1934 law created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an executive branch agency now full of unelected bureaucrats who have created new regulations as desired by whatever presidential administration is in power at the time.

When it came to government policy regarding the internet, the FCC started issuing regulations late in the 1990s. The Obama administration reversed the FCC policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations. Then the first Trump administration reversed the reversal of the Obama administration reversal of the Clinton and Bush administrations. Then later the Biden administration reversed the Trump administration reversal of the Obama administration reversal of the Clinton and Bush administrations. Until last week it appeared the incoming Trump administration might be poised to reverse the Biden administration reversal of the Trump administration reversal of the Obama administration reversal of the Clinton and Bush administration policies. Are you getting dizzy yet?

Mercifully the courts have stepped in, ruling that network neutrality should no longer be a political football with the change of every administration. The ruling of the court is "The FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies through the 'telecommunications service' provision of the Communications Act [of 1934]." The unanimous ruling from the Court of Appeals likely signals this will stand for years to come. Regardless of differing views, everyone should see the recent court ruling as a positive because now the FCC rules will not be changing back and forth every few years on the whims of bureaucrats.

Opinions on net neutrality could be broadly divided into two opposing camps. One side wants rules to require broadband internet providers to treat all of the traffic on their network equally. This has been called the "big pipeline" approach, after the idea that a water main does not discriminate or favor one customer over another. The big pipe simply delivers water to everyone connected to the pipe without even the ability to favor one customer over another.

The opposing camp wants rules that permit companies to sell premium internet services that prioritize one customer over another, certain websites over others, or generally discriminate by slowing down certain customers while selling faster service to others. The big telecommunications companies argue that they should be able to do all this in order to manage the communications infrastructure they own.

And of course there is the political element. One camp wants the ability to monitor, control, and censor all activity online. The opposite camp does not want anyone, government or industry, to have any ability to do that. One camp would like to have rules and regulations; but that could tend either benevolent or dystopian. The other camp wants no regulations; that sound good for free speech, but which necessarily means each big corporation that operates on the internet would have uncontrolled free reign to make up their own rules as they see fit, charging whatever they wish.

This kind of debate about new technology is not without precedent. More than 100 years ago many conservative Moslem clerics in the Arab world viewed radio communication as a threat to their religious values. King Abdulaziz Al Saud, the founder of the state of Saudi Arabia, established the first radio station there, and he himself read Qur'anic verses in the first broadcasts. The king's strategic move laid the groundwork for balancing modernization with entrenched religious considerations in his developing country.

Today the discussion of net neutrality involves a complex balance between ensuring personal freedom while addressing necessary security concerns that protect online freedom. In determining that balance, neither freedom nor security can be sacrificed at the expense of the other. How or if we do this is yet to be determined.

**************

Charles Miller is a freelance computer consultant with decades of IT experience and a Texan with a lifetime love for Mexico. The opinions expressed are his own. He may be contacted at 415-101-8528 or email FAQ8 (at) SMAguru.com.

Discover Lokkal:
Watch the two-minute video below.
Then, just below that, scroll down SMA's Community Wall.
Mission

Visit SMA's Social Network

Contact / Contactar