34
Net Neutrality: Who Wins When Business Becomes the Information Gatekeeper?
By Tracie Powell
BOOKSMART
Rather than recommend a book this issue, the Morgan Global Journalism Review has chosen Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, a recent federal court ruling that could have a deep impact on reporting and access to the Information Superhighway. Media policy analyst Tracie Powell explains why journalists and the public should care.
Say “net neutrality” and people’s eyes glaze over.
It’s a terrible name. Wonky. Boring and blah. But we’re at a defining moment in history when it comes to equal access to the Internet, and that’s what net neutrality is all about.
Right now the Federal Communications Commission is in the midst of deciding whether to allow Internet service providers, like Verizon and Comcast, to give preference to some content owners over others, or block them altogether. We already have some semblance of this already, but the FCC’s proposed rule changes, if approved, would codify whether Internet providers (ISPs) can charge websites, mobile applications or services like Hulu for faster access to the Web.
Why should journalists care? Quite simply, this rule change would mean Internet service providers can pick and choose the content consumers see and how they see it. A recent federal court ruling, Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, is a further setback to what is more commonly called, “net neutrality,” the principle that Internet service providers should enable equal access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. The court stated that the Federal Communications Act does not allow the FCC to force Internet service providers to make their networks equally open to all.