The back-and-forth game of 'net neutrality'

In a world where the important things — like Harry and Meghan’s wedding — command so much of some people’s attention, stuff tends to slip through the cracks of our consciousness.

North Korea, Syria, spies from the “Deep State,” Bitcoin, etc., etc., etc.

One of those things that probably got lost in the buzz recently was the matter of something called net neutrality which, for most, has the equivalent radar blip of cricket vs. the NBA playoffs.

Like tennis, the topic has been volleyed back and forth for years, like at the pace of a friendly match of amateurs. But it’s picked up the pace over the last several years with a back-and-forth fervor of a Wimbledon final.

In February 2015, the Democrat-controlled, five-member Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 and served up its order, reclassifying broadband Internet as a common carrier under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Enter the administration of President Donald Trump and a reconfiguration of the FCC with a Republican tilt and in December 2017 — using a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision for backing —the panel voted, you guessed it, along party lines to put things back the way they always have been.

Deregulated.

And then, just a week ago, the Senate, primarily along party lines with 49 Democrats and three Republicans — Maine’s Susan Collins, John N. Kennedy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska adding the deciding votes— approved what is called a Congressional Review Act.

A CRA permits Congress to revisit, and reject, decisions by governmental agencies. But it still requires the signature of the president which makes this not much more than posturing.

The idea of net neutrality can make one’s eyes glaze over and head hurt trying to make sense of it. Hence, Royal weddings tend to be much easier to understand.

By simple definition, net neutralities regulations, imposed on broadband companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast in 2015, banned the industry from blocking or slowing down websites.

“The rules also prohibited those companies from offering websites and app developers faster, easier access to Internet users in exchange for extra fees — a tactic that critics described as digital ‘fast lanes’ that could distort online competition in favor of large, wealthy businesses,” the Washington Post’s Brian Fung wrote last week.

As simple and as kumbaya-esque as this all sounds, there’s always other perspectives. It’s just that these days, one has to dig a little.

PayPal founder and Facebook investor Peter Thiel opined in 2011, “Net neutrality has not been necessary to date. I don’t see any reason why it’s suddenly become important, when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past 15 years without it. ... Government attempts to regulate technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive in the past.”

And with a broad calling for telecom companies to bring the speed of broadband to rural America, if it’s up to dozens of technology suppliers including IBM, Intel, Qualcomm and Cisco, good luck.

They wrote to the FCC regarding the proposed regulations noting net neutrality is “going to lead to a slowdown, if not a hold, in broadband build out, because if you don’t know that you can recover on your investment, you won’t make it.”

Kim Komando is a widely syndicated radio personality whose expertise is all things technology. She wrote on net neutrality following the December 2017 FCC ruling and touched on a number of hot-button questions.

Among them was the notion that as consumers we opt to Fed-X it for tomorrow delivery as opposed to standard three-day from the U.S. Postal Service.

But one of her other points was: “Where was the Internet 25 years ago in 1992?” Komando asked. For the most part, it did not factor much at all in our lives.

That notion dovetailed into how then has this marvelous technology become what it is today? It’s the driving force in virtually everything, everywhere in our society — in information, education, communications, entertainment, shopping and commerce.

Was it because of tight regulation? Hardly. It was simply a matter that the government did not interfere, a concept basic enough that even those agog with the royal couple ought to be able to grasp.

Paul Delaney can be reached at pdelaney@cheneyfreepress.com.