Opinion | Searching for Fairness on the Internet - The New York Times

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.

Editorial

Searching for Fairness on the Internet

After weeks of being criticized for a proposal that would have divided the Internet into fast and slow lanes, the Federal Communications Commission put forward a new plan on Thursday. While more balanced than its earlier approach, the commission still seems to be leaning toward creating a two-tiered system that could discriminate against smaller companies and restrict consumer choice.

The F.C.C. has been struggling for years to come up with rules to prevent phone and cable companies from blocking or interfering with Internet content. Last month, the chairman of the agency, Tom Wheeler, appeared to throw in the towel when he proposed regulations that would have allowed telecommunications companies to strike deals with firms like Netflix and Amazon for faster delivery of their videos and other data to consumers.

Then, on Thursday, the commission voted 3 to 2 along party lines to consider two options. Under the first option, the F.C.C. would require cable and phone companies to provide their broadband subscribers a basic level of unfettered Internet service. But as long as that condition is met, telecom companies would also be able to charge businesses like Netflix fees to deliver their movies faster to consumers than others.

Under the second option, the commission would reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, akin to a public utility. That would allow for more stringent regulation that could prevent companies like Verizon and Comcast from engaging in unreasonable and unjust discrimination. Many consumer advocates like Public Knowledge and legal scholars like Tim Wu of Columbia Law School have recommended this option all along.

Mr. Wheeler and the commission’s two other Democratic members say they will listen to public comments over the next four months before making up their minds about which of the two options they will pick. (The agency’s two Republican members said they voted against the proposal because they do not think the F.C.C. should adopt any such rules.)


Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT