Indian Time - A Voice from the Eastern Door

Net Neutrality is the idea that internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon should treat all content flowing through their cables and cell towers equally. That means they shouldn’t be able to slide some data into “fast lanes” while blocking or otherwise discriminating against other material. In other words, these companies shouldn’t be able to block you from accessing a service like Skype, or slow down Netflix or Hulu, in order to encourage you to keep your cable package or buy a different video-streaming service.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spent years, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, trying to enforce net neutrality protections. After a series of legal defeats at the hands of broadband providers, the FCC passed a sweeping net neutrality order in 2015. But in December 2017, the now Republican-controlled FCC voted to abandon that order, freeing broadband providers to block or throttle content as they see fit.

Net neutrality advocates have long argued that keeping the internet an open playing field is crucial for innovation. If broadband providers pick favorites online, new companies and technologies might never have the chance to grow. For example, had internet providers blocked or severely limited video streaming in the mid-2000s, we might not have Netflix or YouTube today. Other advocates highlight the importance of net neutrality to free expression: a handful of large telecommunications companies dominate the broadband market, which puts an enormous amount of power into their hands to suppress particular views or limit online speech to those who can pay the most.

The future of net neutrality is now in the hands of Congress and the courts. Twenty-one state attorneys general, led by New York’s Attorneys General Eric Schneiderman, sued the FCC in January to block the new rules and restore the old ones; so did several consumer-advocacy groups. An industry group representing Facebook, Google, Netflix, and other internet companies has also vowed to join legal fights to preserve net neutrality.

On Monday, March 5, the state of Washington took this one step further by signing the first state law intended to protect net neutrality and potentially setting up a legal battle with the Federal Communications Commission.

Washington’s law bans broadband providers offering service in the state from blocking or throttling legal content, or from offering fast-lane access to companies willing to pay extra. The law doesn’t stop providers from imposing data limits and doesn’t address the practice of allowing certain content to bypass data limits, known as “zero rating.”

The FCC attempted to forestall any such state laws when it voted to repeal its own net neutrality rules in December, setting up the potential legal clash. According to media outlets, legal experts are unsure how such a dispute will play out.

The governors of Montana, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Vermont have signed executive orders banning state agencies from doing business with broadband providers that don’t promise to uphold the principles of net neutrality. But Washington is the first state to pass rules that ban network discrimination.

At least 25 other states are considering net neutrality bills, including California, Illinois, and New York. Both houses of Oregon’s legislature have passed a bill that, like the executive orders, bans state agencies from doing business with broadband providers that don’t follow net neutrality. Governor Kate Brown plans to sign it within 30 days.