The Washington Post

NYT: It’s time for stronger net neutrality rules

The New York Times editorial board is calling on the Federal Communications Commission to adopt stronger net neutrality rules than what is currently being proposed, suggesting the agency should reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act to preserve Internet openness.

Citing recent statements by President Obama, the Times argues that Internet providers should not be allowed to charge Web sites for faster access to consumers. Under FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's current plan, Internet providers would be tacitly allowed to strike financial deals with Web sites so long as they were not deemed commercially unreasonable — a policy known as "paid prioritzation." Critics of the plan worry that it could result in some companies being unable to pay, or that the costs may be passed along to Internet users.

Obama said earlier this month that "you don’t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users. You want to leave it open so the next Google and the next Facebook can succeed."

The Times said Thursday that the FCC should take a cue from Obama's remarks.

"Mr. Obama is sending Mr. Wheeler and his fellow commissioners a message," the Times writes. "They should pay attention."

Wheeler has said that he is personally opposed to paid prioritization because it risks interrupting a "virtuous cycle" of investment by broadband companies and consumer demand for new services.

The Times' editorial came a day after a former FCC commissioner, Michael Copps, requested a meeting with Obama to discuss net neutrality. In a letter to the president, Copps and Craig Aaron, president of the consumer group Free Press, said they did not "seek a meeting lightly."

"If we thought it was anything less than urgent, we would not do so," the two men wrote.

Opponents of stronger rules have pointed out that reclassifying broadband under Title II would not necessarily prevent Internet providers from pursuing paid prioritization, because the law would only prohibit "unjust and unreasonable" practices. Among those pushing against stronger regulation is the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial board wrote in May that Title II would "automatically impose myriad obligations that have nothing to do with current customer needs."

It wasn't long ago that net neutrality was an obscure issue for the courts. Now it's increasingly become a presidential matter.

Brian Fung covers technology for The Washington Post, focusing on telecommunications and the Internet. Before joining the Post, he was the technology correspondent for National Journal and an associate editor at the Atlantic.



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
What can babies teach students?
Unconventional warfare with a side of ale
A veteran finds healing on a dog sled
Play Videos
A fighter pilot helmet with 360 degrees of sky
Is fencing the answer to brain health?
Scenes from Brazil's Carajás Railway
Play Videos
How a hacker group came to Washington
The woman behind the Nats’ presidents ‘Star Wars’ makeover
How hackers can control your car from miles away
Play Videos
Philadelphia's real signature sandwich
Full disclosure: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1 ghoul
Europe's migrant crisis, explained
Next Story
Brian Fung · August 14, 2014

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.