Buzz
You might have noticed that Net Neutrality is back in the spotlight. If you're asking, "What exactly is Net Neutrality?" or, "Why should I care?" or, "Does this mean a higher or lower cable bill?" we have answers to (most of) your questions.
What Exactly Is Net Neutrality? (A Simple Explanation)
For those who prefer visuals over text, here's a helpful video explanation:
Alright, Explain Net Neutrality to Me Like I'm 5 Years Old
The internet is like a bunch of tubes.
YouTube has lots of tubes sending the videos out.
YouTube's tubes connect to huge companies like Comcast and Verizon.
Comcast and Verizon have smaller tubes that bring the internet into our homes, hooking up to our wifi. That's how the video travels—it goes from YouTube through tubes to Comcast and Verizon, then through even smaller tubes to us.
Let’s imagine a scenario, shall we? Well, actually, an "imaginary" one.
The issue is, we watch a lot of YouTube. You know it. Admit it. Okay, it’s fine, don’t worry. It’s not just you, it’s the whole family.
The real problem is, since we love YouTube so much, Comcast and Verizon might want YouTube to pay them extra to keep the tubes running smoothly so we can keep watching videos. After all, it costs money to maintain those tubes. And they like money.
But what happens if YouTube doesn’t pay up? Well, Comcast and Verizon might block those tubes or slow them down. That means no more John Green videos, or they’ll just buffer...constantly. That’s bad. And for a long time, it seemed like the U.S. government was okay with that. I know, it’s scary!
But let’s keep going. What if YouTube does pay Comcast and Verizon for a fast lane? Well, that money has to come from somewhere, so it probably means more ads in the videos. Yeah, I know, there are already a ton of ads. But someone has to pay for it, right? Maybe Comcast and Verizon could just charge us more if we want YouTube to work on our internet. Right now, we just get YouTube as part of the internet, but the government has been saying it might be okay to let Comcast, Verizon, and others change that.
But here’s the scarier part—what if Comcast and Verizon decided they preferred Vimeo over YouTube? What if they bought Vimeo because they liked it so much? And then what if they made sure Vimeo videos always played smoothly, while YouTube videos were slow and kept getting stuck buffering? Watching YouTube would be tough, and Vimeo doesn’t have many John Green videos. So, we might have to pay extra just to get our YouTube back.
And what if someone creates a new site that’s better than both YouTube and Vimeo combined? Let’s call it FutureTube. How would FutureTube, a startup from your cousin’s garage, be able to afford to get videos into the tubes when the big sites already have their special paid lanes that make videos flow smoothly? What if the next John Green (let’s call her Jane Blue) starts making all her videos on FutureTube, but Comcast and Verizon don’t like it because it doesn’t have much money yet? That would be terrible. Jane Blue would be really blue.
"Net Neutrality" is the idea that could prevent all these bad tube-related problems. The idea is, many Americans want the government to pass strong laws ensuring that all tubes are treated the same, no matter if it’s Comcast, Verizon, YouTube, FutureTube, Vimeo, or anyone else. All the tubes should operate the same way.
Alright, Enough—Explain It To Me Like I’m an Adult
Here’s the straightforward truth: "Net Neutrality" is just a term for one way to think about how we should regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs). That’s all it is. A lot of people frame this debate in terms of freedom, neutrality, equality, and competition—and that’s one perspective, sure—but at its core, it’s about how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is going to regulate (or not regulate) ISPs moving forward. Right now, we mostly have Net Neutrality, so the conversation has mainly been about whether we should keep it, extend it, or remove it (since some folks support deregulation). Net Neutrality supporters typically say, "Let’s keep it the way it is, but make sure it’s legally enforceable."
The explanation of the internet as a series of tubes isn't exactly accurate or comprehensive in many ways. For one, it’s tricky figuring out who’s paying whom in this equation—because consumers pay ISPs for broadband, and ISPs have peering agreements with each other (essentially, shared access to one another's networks, which can be paid for), and there are special arrangements like Netflix’s OpenConnect (a method of placing Netflix servers in ISP data centers to reduce the "distance" between streaming servers and clients, among other benefits). In some way, everyone is paying someone to keep things running smoothly. But let’s set aside the technicalities and focus on the main question: What exactly is the FCC planning to do?
Last Wednesday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced that he intends to classify broadband ISPs under the FCC's "Title II authority." This is a big move. It means that ISPs could be regulated in the same way phone companies have been, since the internet has become just as integral to daily life as landline phones once were. Title II regulations of phone companies helped create a stable network of interconnecting phone systems that worked well. Many tech enthusiasts believe that, given the near-monopolies that broadband ISPs hold in the U.S., regulation is the only way to ensure fair play. (Where I live, there are only two broadband options, and one is painfully slow. So I guess I’ll stick with the not-slow one?)
(If you're curious about Title II in more detail, check out this explainer.)
Wheeler’s decision to adopt Title II (after initially backing a completely different regulatory approach) was probably influenced by two major factors: President Obama’s support and the massive public response, including millions of comments from tech enthusiasts (and others) reacting to John Oliver's video on the topic, which has now been viewed 7.8 million times (not to mention the millions who saw it on his HBO show Last Week Tonight):
President Obama's video, with 0.8 million views, is less gripping, but still worth a look:
Does This Mean Net Neutrality Is Already Here?
Yes and no; as I mentioned earlier, we do have some form of Net Neutrality at the moment, but we don’t have a solid legal framework to back it up. The big news is that both FCC Chairman and President Obama believe Title II regulation is the way to go. What’s next is a lengthy rule-making process, likely filled with numerous court cases brought by broadband providers, among other things. Also, just because Tom Wheeler says something doesn’t mean he’ll follow through, but I’m inclined to trust him, considering the massive public attention on this issue. After all, John Oliver already called him a dingo (and Wheeler was surprisingly chill about it).
From a tech enthusiast's perspective, it’s a huge deal to have national leaders even acknowledge the concept of Net Neutrality, and for them to specifically back Title II, which is exactly what most geeks have been hoping for (by the way, ISPs despise Title II—and when a regulated industry hates a regulation, you can bet it’s probably effective).
Why Should I Care?
There's a great visual explanation of why you should care over at A Guide To the Open Internet.
As you scroll through that site, take note of all the unnecessary add-on packages in the "What ISPs Want" section. Does it seem familiar to you? It’s just like the extra charges that come with my cable internet bill. Do I need phone service? What about a security package? Maybe premium channels? Or a DVR? How about a bundle of everything for just $10 a month (fine print: price jumps to $200 a month after six seconds; two-year contract required)? No thanks. All I want is internet service, and I want to pay for it the same way I pay for my phone. I choose a plan from the options available in my area, pay one fee, and then I make phone calls. I don’t want my ISP controlling how I use my data as long as it’s legal. Seems fair, right?
Will This Lower My Bills?
In the short term, no, because nothing has changed yet. In the long term, possibly, but it's tough to predict.
It's crucial to remember that this entire debate isn’t about reducing costs for consumers; it’s about how the internet functions in terms of transferring information from one point to another. While there’s hope that positive outcomes, such as more competition or innovation (like the concept of "FutureTube" above), could emerge, those are not the primary reasons to safeguard how the internet operates.
