The United States Senate voted 52-47 on Wednesday in favor of restoring net neutrality. The measure was supported by all 49 Democrats as well as Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and John Kennedy of (Louisiana), according to CNN.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer spoke following the vote in support of the measure.
“Fundamental equality of access is what has made the internet so dynamic,” he said. “The Democratic position is very simple. Let’s treat the internet like the public good that it is.”
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) previously repealed Obama-era regulations for broadband companies last December, giving Internet providers the ability to speed, slow or block specific apps and websites at their own discretion.
The move could also lead to restrictions on customer internet usage and data speed imposed by broadband companies.
Chairman Ajit Pai and the two other GOP members of the FCC struck down net neutrality regulations in a 3-2 vote in a move that Pai claimed will ensure the “government stop[s] micromanaging the internet.”
History of Net Neutrality
Net neutrality, a phrase coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, is the concept that access to web communication and content should be free and unlimited.
Net neutrality was guaranteed to United States residents in 2015 when the FCC applied Title II legislation and Open Internet Order to internet service providers, which prevents companies from blocking and slowing competitors’ websites.
“Net neutrality is an important protection for free flow of information,” said BYU School of Communications Director Ed Carter. “Corporations should not be allowed to engage in content-based choices regarding information flow.”
President Donald Trump and his administration have indicated support for rolling back FCC regulations that help maintain net neutrality.
“We support the FCC chair’s efforts to review and consider rolling back these rules and believe that the best way to get fair rules for everyone is for Congress to take action and create regulatory and economic certainty,” said White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders during a July 18 press conference.
By preserving net neutrality, companies focused on curating and creating creative content can continue to operate as usual and compete in an open market without gatekeepers or limitations, said BYU Law alumna Emma Cano.
BYU currently offers high-speed internet up to 1 gigabit per second and works with multiple internet service providers to provide internet on campus. BYU hasn’t taken an official stance on net neutrality and will “carefully look at the potential impact of any regulatory changes,” said Joe Hadfield, the BYU director of online communications.
Cano said the current rhetoric from the White House is opposite of that expressed by President Barack Obama’s administration. This change in stance could lead to the repeal of net neutrality, giving internet providers an opportunity to change the internet as users know it.
“The broadband providers’ plan would affect competition, innovation and economic growth by restricting the availability and speed of information and services available on the internet,” Cano said.
Cano said Title II would be difficult to repeal entirely because of its age and complexity, but the Open Internet Order could be rolled back, reversing restrictions that prevent broadband providers from limiting the internet. This reversal would affect internet usage and competition across the board for everyone, including BYU students.
“I think that sort of corruption is detrimental to all of us, no matter what stage in life we are at,” Cano said. “It makes information harder to obtain, it prevents innovation on a number of levels (from end users to content providers) and it prevents economic growth.”
Carter said the FCC’s best approach to net neutrality should be to “do no harm,” and just leave it in place.
“Society generally suffers from information content bottlenecks, especially in a deregulated environment where corporations seek their own interests and not the public interest,” Carter said.