Staff Editorial
In the modern age of technology, the internet functions as almost a necessity. In 2015, under the Obama administration, a set of rules were put in place that required Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to offer equal access to all websites and internet content to consumers without charging a premium for higher-quality content or speeds. This prevented providers from giving preferential treatment to certain websites, a set of rules commonly referred to as net neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), headed by Trump appointee Ajit Pai, repealed net neutrality in a 3-2 vote Dec. 14, 2017. Leading up to the repeal, there was a large protest cultivated mainly online and participated in by many consumers. Most those against the repeal were teenagers like us, who rely on the internet for many things, from our social lives to our school work. It is the opinion of The Omniscient staff that the repeal of net neutrality will have little to no consumer benefits and will mainly benefit internet service providers. Thus, the vote of the FCC will do nothing but harm the common consumer.
The fight for net neutrality is mainly a fight between Internet Service Providers, like AT&T or Comcast, and content providers, like YouTube or Twitter. Because the net neutrality repeal puts more power in the hands of ISPs, these corporations now have the ability to charge content providers more to be available on their platform or to work at the highest speeds. Look at it this way: if Comcast is tight with Netflix due to financial reasons, they may have the ability to deliberately slow down Hulu, a direct competitor of Netflix. Though this battle does not directly involve consumers like us, the effects of the repeal will almost certainly trickle down.
Although nothing has been immediate since the repeal, as the decision is now making its way through the court system, we, as consumers, are fearful that the internet will no longer be the accessible, easy-to-use web of information we know it as now. If internet service providers decide to make changes such as differing the speed from different content providers we hold so dearly, like Netflix and Google, it is almost certain this extra cost will be passed down onto the consumers. This could cause low-income families and those who do not have access to news sources other than the Internet to face barriers when seeking basic news and information. Those that were in favor of the repeal of net neutrality argue that it will stop the government from micromanaging service providers and actually give consumers greater choice. Ultimately, the effects of the repeal will be up to the providers to decide, as this decision now puts more power back in corporate hands.
