Net neutrality: five questions after court struck down the rules

The principle of “net neutrality” was struck down by a federal appeals court on Jan. 14 – a victory for the telecom giant Verizon, which had sued the Federal Communications Commission over the agency’s broadband regulations. Since then, free-speech and consumer advocates have cried foul, saying the ruling will change the Internet as we know it and create a system of haves and have-nots. Here’s an explanation of the issues involved.

Matt Rourke/AP/File
A sign stands outside the Comcast Center in Philadelphia in 2009. On Tuesday a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the principle of 'net neutrality.'

1. What is ‘net neutrality’?

Matt Rourke/AP/File
A sign stands outside the Comcast Center in Philadelphia in 2009. On Tuesday a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the principle of 'net neutrality.'

Imagine the Internet as a tinkertoy system of pipes flowing with bits of data. Net neutrality basically means that all these bits can flow through the system equally. Information sent from Joe in Toledo, Ohio, is treated the same as information sent from a multibillion, multinational corporation.

The principle of net neutrality was enshrined in a set of rules called the Open Internet order, which the FCC adopted in 2010. These rules prevented companies like Verizon, Time Warner, or any other high-speed service provider from playing favorites. Telecoms couldn’t block any lawful data or unreasonably discriminate against any source, or destination, of lawful data. For example, Time Warner’s broadband service was not allowed make Time Warner movies stream faster down the pipes than those from Sony.

1 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.