It's also about more than net neutrality.
Can the FCC make net neutrality stick this time? Five years after net neutralityâs (temporary) demise, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is set to fulfill the [Biden administrationâs vision]( of re-implementing the Obama-era policy. That means the effort to reclassify broadband internet from an information service to a common carrier, subject to increased oversight and regulations just like phone companies, is back, too. The agency [just got]( its third Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, after waiting nearly two years for the Senate to confirm a Biden appointment (a previous Biden nominee, Gigi Sohn, [withdrew in March](). The 2â2 deadlock that prevented the agency from making any politicized changes has now been broken, and FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel clearly doesnât want to waste any more time. Net neutrality, which sheâs a longtime proponent of, is first on the agenda. Rosenworcel [announced plans to restore the policy]( on Tuesday, saying that the [Trump-era repeal]( of net neutrality âput the agency on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the public. It was not good then, but it makes even less sense now.â âToday we begin a process to make this right,â she said. And so begins the next battle in a years-long war that has spawned [mass protests](, one (likely soon to be two) agency reversals, and [major]( [lawsuits]( â and was [part of the reason]( why the FCC under President Biden didnât have its full complement of five commissioners until now. Itâs also the subject of a well-moneyed campaign from telecommunications companies, who like to frame net neutrality as simply forcing broadband providers to treat all traffic equally, something they say they already do (which [isnât entirely true](), and argue that thereâs no need to mandate it. But net neutrality â or, to be more exact, the reclassification of internet service providers that makes net neutrality possible â is about a lot more than that. CNN Business [refers to]( net neutrality as a âthird rail of broadband policyâ because itâs somehow become a controversial, politicized issue. That makes it harder for the average person to know exactly what net neutrality is and what it would mean for them. Net neutralityâs opponents, which include most Republicans and the telecommunications companies whose services would be governed by the rule, say it will subject internet service providers to overburdensome regulations and stuffy government oversight, which will stymy innovation and competition in an industry that already provides great service (some [might disagree]( with that assessment) to the American people. Proponents, including most Democrats, consumer advocates, and internet services [like Netflix](, say that the internet has become a vital and necessary part of American life and should be classified accordingly under the FCCâs purview, just like the telegraph and telephone services that came before it were. âThere is a misinformation campaign associated with net neutrality,â Tom Wheeler, the chair of the FCC when net neutrality was first passed, told Vox. He added that it distracts from âthe broader question, which is that it is absolutely absurd that there would be no public interest oversight of the most important network of the 21st century.â The long fight to oversee the internet like the telephone Net neutrality â or network neutrality, if you want the longhand â means that internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast must treat all traffic equally. They canât speed up traffic to some sites or slow it down (or block it) to others. They canât charge extra to visit sites or services, nor can they give any sites or services priority. This is how our phone lines work; carriers canât charge extra or block calls to different carriers without cause, for example. And while internet service providers have largely done the same, without net neutrality thereâs nothing [on a federal level]( requiring that they do. The FCC, however, canât require net neutrality from internet service providers if broadband isnât classified as a common carrier under [Title II]( of the Telecommunications Act. We know this because when the agency tried to issue net neutrality rules in the past, Comcast and Verizon sued to stop it, and [they]( [won](. After that, the FCC moved to reclassify high-speed internet under Title II. In 2015, it did so with the [Open Internet Order](. Then Trump took office and put Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC, where he quickly set about undoing net neutrality. He accomplished that in 2018 with the [Restoring Internet Freedom Order](, which re-reclassified broadband internet from a Title II carrier back to an information service under a âlight-touch regulatory schemeâ with a few transparency requirements. Now the FCC wants to reclassify broadband â actually, this would re-re-reclassify broadband â and has the votes to do it. It might seem like 2015 again, but a lot has happened in the intervening years, Rosenworcel said, that only helps make the case that broadband needs to be a common carrier. The pandemic âmade it crystal clear that broadband is no longer nice-to-have; itâs need-to-have for everyone, everywhere,â she said. âIt is not a luxury. It is a necessity. It is essential infrastructure for modern life. ... Yet even as our society has reconfigured itself to do so much online, our institutions have failed to keep pace. Today, there is no expert agency ensuring that the internet is fast, open, and fair.â There may be no greater example these days of the internetâs importance and the need for real regulation than the war in Ukraine. The success of some Ukrainian military operations [is dependent]( on internet service, yet a [mercurial business owner]( has the sole authority to pick and choose where and when itâs available. âWe should not have to live with broadband as a âbest effortsâ service where your internet provider decides whether or not to invest in needed maintenance and upgrades,â Harold Feld, a senior vice president for consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Vox. âFor the purpose of promoting safety of life and propertyâ So, what, exactly, does it mean to be a Title II carrier besides the net neutrality part? Primarily, it gives the FCC more oversight and authority. As Rosenworcel said, it means that technology that has become as â if not more â important than the phone will have the kind of agency oversight that many other essential industries and services have had for a long time. Itâll give the FCC the ability to make privacy rules, ensure that people have access to internet services, require more transparency and accountability from providers, and regulate rates (though the FCC expressly said it would not do this [back in 2015]( and it will likely do the same now). The FCC will be able to act sooner and more thoroughly on national and cybersecurity issues, too. âIf you do not have authority over broadband networks, then how do you deal with what happens when thereâs an effort to weaponize those networks by adversaries?â Wheeler asked. âHow do you deal when those networks trample on the privacy rights of their users? How do you deal with the fact that every single cyberattack at some point in time goes across a public network? If you donât have jurisdiction over those networks, how can you put protections in place?â Republicans, unsurprisingly, have labeled the move a power grab that will make internet service worse and more expensive; Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said in a statement, âFCC Democrats simply want control. They desperately want to micromanage providersâ pricing and terms of service, and collect billions in [new USF taxes]( at the expense of investment, economic growth, and consumer choice.â (Again, the new FCC rules are likely to say that the agency wonât regulate rates, just as they did in 2015.) But you can judge for yourself if Americaâs broadband internet is the best it can possibly be, with the choice, service, access, and investment that a crucial technology can and should have. Ending net neutrality back in 2018 may not have destroyed the internet, like some net neutrality supporters [thought]( it [would](, but did it make it any better? Do we want a future where access to a vital service is controlled by relatively few companies, governed by even fewer rules? âWe didnât invent the FCC because it was a boring Tuesday in 1934 and FDR said âI know what will perk things up!ââ Feld said. âWe did it, in the words of [Section 1]( of the Communications Act, âfor the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property,â and to ensure to all people of the United States the best communication network possible.â âWe need an internet that works predictably and reliably so we can get on with our lives,â he added. Assuming the re-re-reclassification goes through â the process will likely take several months â we can expect it to be challenged in the courts and possibly even by a future Republican Congress (which basically [overruled]( the FCCâs attempt to make privacy rules during the short window when broadband was a Title II carrier). So if and when the FCC finalizes the return of net neutrality, we wonât know for sure that rule is, in fact, final. History shows us that it may not be, but something has to stick sometime, right? âSara Morrison, senior reporter [FTC chair Lina Khan with Amazonâs smile logo superimposed upside down over her mouth.]( Vox; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images [The governmentâs case to break up Amazon, explained]( [The Federal Trade Commission, led by longtime Amazon critic Lina Khan, finally makes its move.]( [A robot shuffles cards with paperclip illustrations on them]( Ariel Davis for Vox [The $1 billion gamble to ensure AI doesnât destroy humanity]( [The founders of Anthropic quit OpenAI to make a safe AI company. Itâs easier said than done.]( [Sissie Hsiao, a vice president at Google and general manager for Google Assistantâs business unit, speaks onstage during the Google I/O keynote session in May 2023.]( Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images [Your AI personal assistant is almost here â assuming you actually want it]( [Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have a vision for generative AI. Will it work?](
Â
[Learn more about RevenueStripe...]( [A woman checks her cellphone as she waits in line to enter the US Supreme Court.]( Alex Wong/Getty Images [The Supreme Court showdown over social media âcensorship,â explained]( [A rogue federal court effectively put the Republican Party in charge of social media, and now the justices have to deal with this mess.]( [A man looks at an Apple iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max held in each of his hands.]( Justin Sullivan/Getty Images [That âfreeâ iPhone 15 could cost a fortune]( [How to buy a new phone for less without paying more.]( Support our work Vox Technology is free for all, thanks in part to financial support from our readers. Will you join them by making a gift today? [Give]( [Listen To This] [Listen to This]( [Why did it take five months to solve the writers' strike?]( Bloombergâs Lucas Shaw breaks down what we know so far about the new deal between the studios and the Writers Guild of America. What took so long? [Listen to Apple Podcasts]( [This is cool] [The delightful folks at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, of all places, put out an album](
Â
[Learn more about RevenueStripe...]( [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [YouTube]( This email was sent to {EMAIL}. Manage yourâ¯[email preferences](, orâ¯[unsubscribe](param=tech) â¯to stop receiving emails from Vox Media. View our [Privacy Notice]( and our [Terms of Service](. Vox Media, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036. Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved.