Rich and poor. Fast and slow. The age of neutrality in network has now ended in United States. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under Republican control, has passed three votes against two to withdraw measures established in 2015 with Barack Obama to shield equity on Internet. In front of a network understood as "public good", where service providers are obliged to treat equally all data regardless of ir origin, type and destination, it is going to impose a system that allows different speeds depending on payment and interests of Operators. A triumph of liberalism, a defeat of great technology and, at very least, an unknown to consumer.
The change, presented as "a victory of freedom", has come from hands of great suppliers. Telecommunications giants like Comcast, AT T or Verizon have allied with administration of Donald Trump to break legal dam that precisely avoided those companies were imposing ir dictates in traffic and contents of network. Under system approved in Barack Obama era, operator should always offer same deal. You were prevented from blocking access to Web pages, slowing connection or accelerating it under payment. The criterion was equity. Avoid discrimination. To safeguard neutrality of nervous system of world knowledge. All this has come down today.
The consequences of this deregulation can be profound. "Neutrality in network guaranteed Darwinian competitiveness among all possible uses of Internet in such a way that Sobreviviesen best," wrote Tim Wu, Columbia University professor who coined concept. Once this armor has been knocked down, anor evolutionary stage begins. The operator, who so far could not interfere in traffic on his freeway, can now create fast, slow lanes or directly deny entry.Who controls Web
And now who's protecting user? The question is crucial. The two Democratic commissars of Federal Communications Commission highlighted danger of leaving Internet unregulated. "The consumer no longer has to defend him, he is exposed to big suppliers," said Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel.
Republicans argue that control of operators and persecution of unfair or prejudicial practices will be in Federal Trade Commission. But this federal agency, as Democrats remember, lacks experience in such tasks and also does not account for it. Instead, Federal Communications Commission, which has been protecting users for two years, is relegated to transparency issues. "Why did we end protections?" Why do we let re be discrimination? "This is an abdication of responsibilities in favor of providers," Democrats sentenced.
Although providers have not made public ir plans, door is opened to negotiate agreements with portals, to offer packages of Internet services similar to those of cable televisions, and that, in end, give more speed to ir partners in Detriment of those who do not. And even, according to experts, to block those competing with ir offerings.
The kaleidoscope of scenarios is almost inexhaustible, but it is summarized in possibility of scales of service and, refore, different prices for user and also for large companies. This last point is particularly delicate. An old operator complaint is expense generated by larger portals, whose massive use of data monopolizes bandwidth. This can give rise to special rates, something possibly acceptable for Google, Amazon or Facebook, but onerous for new companies or those in precarious financial situations.
The President of Commission, Ajit Pai, main enemy of neutrality in network, has repeatedly denied that changes will increase costs to user or allow for blockages. Among his arguments are that none of this occurred before 2015 and that, on contrary, reform has reduced investment in broadband to point that, to continue this fall, not only jeopardized speed in network but consumer was going to face a increase of prices.
"The withdrawal of neutrality will restore freedom, return to a better and cheaper Internet." Consumer protection will remain and your access will not be limited. But it is not our job to decide who wins and who loses in Internet economy. "The government will stop regulating how providers should handle mselves, and y'll have incentives to cope with next generation of networks and services," Pai said.
Once initiative is approved, re are only two ways to prevent application. The courts or a law. None seem easy to achieve in short term. But opposing front does not cease to be broad and powerful. The Democrats, like big internet companies, from Google to Facebook, consider that deregulation attacks central nerve of network.
"The measure puts Commission on wrong side of history, law and Internet." "But this does not end here, future does not deserve this ending," sentenced Jessica Rosenworcel, Commission's Democratic commissioner. "Damage is important, new businesses will be prevented and people's interests are turned back," said Democratic Congressman Mike Doyle in a paper who has announced that he will present a law to prevent deregulation. An initiative aimed at failure in near-monolithic opposition of Republicans to Obama's reform. Anor Trump blow to his legacy.