Decoding “Network Neutrality”: A User-Friendly Explanation of Verizon v. FCC and Its Impact on Latinos

National Hispanic Media Coalition
This past week a federal appeals court gutted a large portion of the Federal Communications Commission’s “network neutrality” rules. This column will explain what the network neutrality rules accomplished, and what the court decision means for those of us that care about the well-being of Latinos and other people of color.
Network Neutrality, defined
After five years of advocating for network neutrality, I realize that many people have never heard of the concept. Even among folks that are familiar with the term, there is quite a bit of confusion about the details. Really the concept is quite simple, though it does require a basic understanding of how the Internet works. So here goes.
We, as consumers, pay broadband Internet providers such Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T and Verizon, to provide us with connections to the Internet. Most of us have only one or two choices when it comes to home broadband Internet service providers. And usually these Internet connections are very expensive. In fact, broadband in the U.S. is exponentially more expensive (and slower) than in many other countries across the globe.
These broadband providers are distinct from Internet content and application providers, such as Facebook, YouTube, Netflix and any host of blogs, etc., that we enjoy over our broadband connections. These content and application providers, commonly referred to as “edge-providers,” also pay broadband providers for their Internet connections.
The FCC’s network neutrality rules accomplished three critical goals. First, they ensured that once we had paid the hefty price for our connections, that our broadband providers could not block our access to any lawful edge-providers. Second, they ensured that our broadband providers could not discriminate against any edge-providers. This prohibited them from cutting special deals with wealthy corporations to speed up connections to entrenched corporate edge-providers, and slow down or degrade the quality of our connections to edge-providers that cannot pay extra to go faster.
Third, it required our broadband providers to disclose how they manage online traffic.
Let’s explore the implications of the first two rules.
No Blocking. Monica immigrated to the U.S. when she was ten years-old. Many of her family members remain in Mexico. She communicates with them through Skype, an online application, or edge-provider. Under the network neutrality rules, her broadband provider, which happens to be Verizon, could not have blocked Skype. Today, no law prevents Verizon from doing so. Verizon – which also provides Monica’s telephone service – has economic incentive to shut down competing services.
No Discrimination. Eduardo owns his own mom-and-pop business, which sells and rents tools and other construction equipment. Under network neutrality rules, broadband providers were not allowed to cut a deal with Home Depot so that Home Depot’s site loads faster than Eduardo’s.
Vanessa writes love letters to her bi-racial, bi-ethnic children on her blog, DeSuMama. com. She is an alternative voice to the U.S. mainstream media, which, historically, has largely ignored the positive contributions of people of color. Under network neutrality rules, we can access Vanessa’s blog just as quickly as we can access mainstream media sites.
Without network neutrality, broadband providers can increase their bottom lines by acting as gatekeepers, relegating Eduardo and Vanessa’s websites to a slow lane. Indeed, Verizon admitted that it would be exploring these types of arrangements absent network neutrality rules.
The Court’s Decision and the Path Forward
In Verizon v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the network neutrality rules that prohibited blocking and discrimination. This means that, today, our broadband providers may block our access to edge-providers and pick winners and losers on the Internet. This is a disastrous situation for anyone that conducts business, learns, distributes or consumes content or applications on the Internet.
On a positive note, the court’s decision provides a roadmap for the FCC Chair to preserve equality on the Internet. It states that Internet regulation “comfortably falls within the [FCC’s] jurisdiction” (pg. 7). It also states that the FCC “convincingly detailed how broadband providers’ position in the market gives them the economic power to restrict edge-provider traffic,” (pg. 38), and finds that the FCC “established that the threat that broadband providers would utilize their gatekeeper ability to restrict edge-provider traffic is not, as the [FCC] put it, ‘merely hypothetical’” (pg. 42).
The court’s decision to gut network neutrality rules is based entirely on a legal technicality that the FCC could easily fix.
You see, when it issued the rules in 2010, the FCC performed a sort of legal gymnastics to establish its authority. As the decision indicates, the FCC could have asserted its authority in a cleaner way by reclassifying broadband providers as “common carriers,” which fall easily within the FCC’s purview under Title II of the Communications Act.
The positive impacts of this “reclassification” would reach far beyond network neutrality. It would vest the FCC with clear authority to close the digital divide by enacting policies to connect the 100 million mostly brown and black Americans who currently do not have home broadband.
Dispelling a Few Infamous Net Neutrality Fallacies
The main goal of broadband providers, like all large American corporations, is to maximize profit. In this pursuit, many broadband providers have dropped millions of dollars into spinning the facts on this issue to regulators, elected officials and non-profit organizations. I know, because I have been the target of this spin machine on more than one occasion.
Here’s a few quick facts to help clear up some confusion:
1. Network neutrality has always allowed broadband providers to reasonably manage their networks. It’s right on the second page of the FCC’s original order.
2. Broadband providers will pick winners and losers on the Internet unless the FCC reinstates network neutrality regulations. Verizon conceded in oral argument that it would be pursuing discriminatory arrangements with corporate partners but for the rules. Even with network neutrality guidelines and rules, there were many examples of broadband service providers abusing their power.
3. The free market is not enough to solve this problem. The court acknowledged that 70% of Americans have only one or two choices for home broadband service and that providers make it very difficult to switch services. Consumers are locked in, we cannot vote with our feet.
If you are anything like me, you enjoy instant access to Facebook, Netflix and You-Tube, but you also use the Internet to find the very best deals and to hear from alternative media outlets. If you work for a non-profit organization, the Internet is your best mechanism to lift up your message and organize people around your social justice initiatives. If you are a blogger, you earn a living and tell your story online. If you are a small business owner, the Internet allows people to find your goods or services online. If you are a creative person, you can showcase your content online.
The end of network neutrality jeopardizes our ability to do all of these things. Please join me in calling on the FCC to ensure internet equality today!

Author

Jessica Gonzalez