Article by: Matt McQuaid
“The Internet is the epitome of egalitarian, free-flowing access to all types of information to any party.”
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia dealt a serious blow to free speech and ambitious plans to expand broadband access by deciding against the Federal Communication Commission’s Net Neutrality Rule.
The Net Neutrality principle essentially states that if one party pays for Internet access, and another party pays for that same access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the same level of communication. The court, however, ruled against the FCC’s rule, claiming the government agency did not have the broad-reaching authority to regulate the treatment of Internet content flowing over the networks of Internet providers. The ruling has been seen as a huge victory for the Comcast Corporation, which brought the case to court in 2007 over a dispute regarding the right of the cable giant to block customer’s access to the file-sharing site bit torrent.
In some ways, Comcast’s course of action is understandable, seeing as they wouldn’t want to be held liable for copyright infringement. However, as Comcast never really condoned the file sharing by their customers, it would be hard to make an argument that they were actively participating in a breach of law under the vicarious liability. In terms of being sued, the company really doesn’t have that much to worry about.
The biggest problem with the FCC ruling is that it sets a dangerous precedent for future cases regarding free speech issues. If private companies can limit access to consumers based on content, how long will it be before the Comcast Corporation and others use their newfound freedom to limit what their viewers look at for other reasons, such as concerns about obscenity? How long will it be before they limit viewer’s access to politically extreme sights, citing terrorism concerns? How long before they censor an online college publication for writing an article about a band with an extremely offensive name?
The court’s ruling also has implications beyond free speech. Last month, the FCC released a broad new plan to expand broadband access to poor and rural areas, and certain parts of the plan require FCC regulation that the court has stated it no longer has. This is inherently unfair to the people who fall into these categories. People in rural and lower-income areas should have access to the Internet because, at this point, Internet access has gone from commodity to technological necessity; to deny certain segments of the population Internet service would be like denying them access to a telephone. If Comcast wants to inhibit broadband access by the FCC, they should take it upon themselves to expand broadband access to all Americans.
The Internet is the epitome of egalitarian, free-flowing access to all types of information to any party. From dogs committing human actions, to databases making research far easier than it was twenty years ago, to the most raunchy, unspeakable, unfathomable sex acts, the Internet has provided a plethora of information and services to citizens all over the globe. If this comes under fire from governments, corporations, or other entities, the consequences could be incredibly far-reaching and unimaginably detrimental to citizens all over the world.
