There’s a page on whitehouse.gov entitled: “Net Neutrality: President Obama’s Plan for a Free and Open Internet.” For this article, let’s use the President’s nomenclature: Net Neutrality = A Free and Open Internet.
What exactly does that mean?
Common sense would tell us that a “free and open Internet” is just that. Advocates of a free and open Internet want an Internet where all bits are treated equally. Theoretically, all bits would travel at approximately the same speed, all bits would be considered equally important and, no entity would have the power to restrict or inhibit access for a legal use. In his statement, the President specifically calls out:
No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
