FCC approves new net neutrality policies
On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in favor of moving forward a proposal that would change the way consumers use the internet forever.
The plan, which was approved in a three-to-two vote, would allow Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge websites a premium for access to faster “lanes”, allowing higher-quality delivery the the American public. This proposal would strike down the idea of pure net neutrality.
For those unfamiliar, net neutrality refers to the idea that the Internet should be treated as a public utility like gas, water and electric, and should not be allowed to be restricted by providers.
While companies like Netflix, Hulu and YouTube wouldn’t have an issue affording these fees for faster service, smaller websites like popular blogs (i.e FanSided) could face troubles under these new regulations. Should they not be able to afford the fees, those services could see their delivery speeds halted when it reaches a certain number.
[Sidenote: Follow @FanSidedTech on Twitter]
Where this could impact the average user is in the form of trickle down costs. Should sites like YouTube, Twitch and Twitter be forced to pay these premiums, then consumers could fell the pinch in the form of price increases. In regards to the three aforementioned sites, these new regulations could force them to go behind a paywall in order to afford the premium that ISPs are charging.
The new policies are not final yet, but the successful vote on Thursday goes a long way towards making a controversial proposal a reality in America. The proposal will now hear four months of public comments before yet another vote on redrafted rules that is supposed to take into account the words of the people.
Despite the backlash, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler stands by his proposed rules. During the pre-vote meeting on Thursday, Wheeler said that these new rules wouldn’t allow the slowing or blocking of a website to users, contrary to popular belief.
“If a network operator slowed the speed of service below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited. If the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no-blocking rule and therefore be doubly prohibited,” he said.
And though he tries to calms the nerves of users, the choice of terms that Wheeler uses does little to accomplish that. Using a phrase like “commercially unreasonable” is a vague as it gets, which would allow ISPs a way to find a loophole or workaround to the policies in order to slow down services.