IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

FCC's Republican members kill net neutrality

Americans may not have realized the very idea of an open internet was on the ballot last year. It was -- and now net neutrality is dead.
A person man uses a laptop. (Karl-Josef Hildenbrand/dpa/AP)
A person man uses a laptop.

Following up on our previous coverage, when Donald Trump chose a fierce opponent of net neutrality to lead the Federal Communications Commission, it was obvious that it was only a matter of time before the very idea of an open internet came under fire.

That time is now.

Net neutrality, the set of rules requiring internet service providers to treat all traffic as equal, is dead.The five members of the Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday 3-2 along party lines to scrap Obama-era net neutrality rules, returning to a "light touch" approach and ending what Chairman Ajit Pai has called the federal government's "micromanaging" of the internet.

As we discussed in November, it’s important to understand that what Pai describes as “micromanagement” are existing safeguards, established by the Obama administration, mandating that all online content be treated equally by service providers. Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, has long opposed those safeguards, and Donald Trump has empowered him to rewrite the rules.

You may not have realized last year that your internet access was on the presidential ballot, but it was, and we’re now facing a rather severe elections-have-consequences moment.

If you need a refresher on what the net-neutrality debate is all about, imagine an online landscape in which your service provider had a package of preferred websites – customers could access those sites quickly and easily, and they would function as they’re supposed to. But the ISP also had websites with unfavorable status – when customers tried to access sites the service provider doesn’t like for whatever reason, maybe the sites would load slowly. Maybe consumers would have to pay more to access them. Maybe both.

For consumer advocates, this is a major problem. Service providers shouldn’t be in a position, the argument goes, to make website access easier or harder based on the ISP’s business decisions. Whether you’re doing online banking, streaming content on Netlfix or Hulu, or keeping up on the news, you shouldn’t face online speed bumps and toll booths to get where you want to go.

And that’s where net neutrality comes in: the point is to create a level playing field, prohibiting service providers from playing favorites.

Yes, it’s government regulation, but it’s regulation to protect consumers and encourage online innovation.

The Republican argument is that if service providers can start making it easier or harder for consumers to access websites based on the company’s business deals, it means entrepreneurs can “create economic growth.” You may struggle to access online content you currently enjoy, and you may find that infuriating, but for the GOP, you’re supposed to take comfort in the fact that you’re “facilitating economic empowerment.”

The internet may never be the same.

Disclosure: I work for MSNBC, which is owned by Comcast, which as Rachel recently explained on the show, has an interest in this fight. Comcast, one of the nation's leading internet service providers, is on record supporting net neutrality, but the company would like to get rid of the regulations that currently guarantee it.