Cookie free hits tracker

FCC Reinstates Net Neutrality in 3-2 Vote

SAN FRANCISCO — The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday voted to bring back “net neutrality” rules that prevent broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon from prioritizing certain sites and apps. This decision revives a 2015 net neutrality order from the Obama era, which was repealed in 2017 during Donald Trump’s presidency.

The measure, passing with a 3-2 vote along party lines, saw Democratic commissioners in favor and Republicans opposed, the Associated Press reported. Net neutrality mandates that internet service providers treat all digital content equally, without bias towards business affiliates or against competitors.

Public interest group Public Knowledge defines net neutrality as the principle ensuring “the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet.” The reinstated rules prohibit practices such as throttling or blocking access to specific sites or apps and offering higher speeds exclusively to paying customers.

“In our post-pandemic world, we know that broadband is a necessity, not a luxury,” stated FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel before the vote. Although nearly seven years have passed since the previous net neutrality rules were abolished, their return is not expected to drastically alter the online experience for users. This minimal impact is attributed to several states enacting their own net neutrality laws prior to the 2015 federal regulations, which remained effective even after the FCC’s 2017 reversal.

John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, remarked, “Some of the absolute worst excesses from [internet providers] were kept in check by state-level oversight.” States like California have adopted even stricter regulations, such as banning “zero rating” practices where mobile providers might favor certain streaming services by not charging for data.

The telecommunications industry has consistently opposed the reintroduction of these federal rules, viewing them as undue governmental interference in business operations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *