09.19.2014

The public has left a record 3.7 million comments on the FCC website, weighing in on how federal lawmakers should rule on Internet traffic equality. An analysis conducted by the Sunlight Foundation found that the first 800,000 comments only had 1% with a dissenting opinion on net neutrality.

Basically, that’s a whole lot of people saying they think that all traffic on the internet — no matter who created it — should be treated equally.

Today’s featured bill, S. 2476, would ban the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from allowing fast lanes on the Internet — all in support of net neutrality.



This bill would direct the FCC to ban Internet providers from speeding up some content (like online videos) at the expense of others (like e-mail). This is known as a “two-tiered” system that allows internet providers — like Comcast and Verizon — to charge companies to offer their content to internet users more quickly, i.e. in the fast lane. If you can’t pay, you and your content ends up in the slow lane.

If you still don’t get it, let John Oliver explain it to you in a way that doesn’t put you to sleep:

S. 2476 doesn’t offer the FCC new powers, but the bill — known as the Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act — would offer the commission the authority to create regulations that prohibit broadband providers from:

Signing an agreement with an internet company or online creator of content/applications/services/access devices offering preferential treatment or a promise of priority to online traffic.

Offering preferential treatment or priority to content, applications, services, or devices that are created or operated by those broadband providers and their affiliates.

This legislation also limits itself by prohibiting S. 2476 guidelines from getting in the way of a broadband provider’s obligation to address the needs of emergency communications, law enforcement, public safety, or national security.

Supporters of net neutrality and this bill are championing an Internet that facilitates free expression and innovation, where ideas and services are disseminated based on public interest rather than how much they pay a broadband company.

Others feel that S. 2476 is more bark than bite. There are growing questions of how effective this bill could be since it only directs the FCC to work within its current authority:

“An ongoing debate at the FCC is whether it’s legally able to ban traffic discrimination at all. Under the current proposal, the FCC would tacitly allow commercial speed agreements but then review problematic ones on a case-by-case basis, rather than lay down a blanket restriction against what’s called ‘paid priortization.’ Consumer advocates have suggested instead that the FCC reclassify broadband as a utility — a decision that would subject ISPs to greater regulation. But broadband companies have said that even that would not guarantee a prioritization ban’s survival, because of a loophole in the law that allows for some traffic discrimination so long as it isn’t 'unjust’ or 'unreasonable.’”

Where do you stand? Does paid prioritization fundamentally change how the Internet works? Should all Internet traffic should be treated equally? Or should the government not be able to dictate how broadband providers offer services? Let your Rep. know over at the Countable site!