President Barack Obama has revealed he supports reclassifying internet service as a utility, which would see the ‘light touch’ regulation that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have long enjoyed come to an end.
The move would allow Federal Communications Commission (FCC) officials to enforce stricter rules on how ISPs operate to protect net neutrality.
“I’m asking the FCC to reclassifying internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act,” Obama said in a statement earlier today. “In plain English, I’m asking [the FCC] to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.” You can watch the President’s full statement below:
The President clearly lays out his belief that no ISP should be able to put any limits on the free and open access to legal content on the internet. He goes into detail about his view on the best course of action for the FCC in a letter accompanying the video; which includes no blocking or throttling (slowing down) of any content, more transparency, and no paid prioritization.
Net neutrality has been a hot topic ever since it was revealed Comcast may have been intentionally slowing down Netflix’s internet traffic while they were in negotiations with them. Since then, the FCC have proposed new rules which have been widely criticized by technology companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook for allowing individualized bargaining, which ends net neutrality by allowing the existence of so-called “internet fast lanes.” This is a critical time for the internet, and how the FCC rules will be the only near-term opportunity to protect net neutrality, which is one of the founding principles of the internet.
Ultimately, the FCC is an independent regulatory body and the President has no direct authority over them. However, with the President now publicly supporting a free and open internet, the FCC may now have the political capital to justify such a drastic rule change. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has previously said he isn’t completely opposed to reclassifying ISPs as utilities, but only if other methods won’t work first.
“The more deeply we examined the issues… the more it has become plain that there is more work to do,” Wheeler wrote in a statement addressing net neutrality proposals.
The FCC was originally due to have new net neutrality rules in place by the end of this year; however, the final vote was pushed back after 4 million Americans sent messages strongly opposing their proposals during the public comment period. Reports suggest the vote has now been pushed back until 2015, which appears likely as they consider the President’s response to the issue.
For now, it seems, the FCC will need more time to come up with new rules that will satisfy ISPs, consumers, and content providers like Google and Netflix while minimizing any potential legal fallout.
Read President Obama’s letter supporting net neutrality below:
An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.
“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.
When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:
- No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
- No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
- Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
- No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.
The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.
To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.
So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.
Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.
The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.