Should the
Net be considered a public utility? Now that the FCC
has decided it should be, Le Monde's
editorial board says Europe
should follow suit.
FCC Backs U.S.
Net Neutrality: Europe Should Be 'Inspired' (Le Monde, France)
"Given the
weight of America's digital economic giants, it is a decision that will directly
influence Europe and the world when it comes to the ground rules among service
providers, content providers and services, and the citizen-consumers of the Internet.
… The first state intervention by Washington in the history of the Internet, it
reflects the fact that government cannot leave the ubiquitous digital
revolution to regulate itself, and without a basic set of common rules that are fair and democratic."
Beyond arcane technicalities
and the colossal financial stakes, the decision
just taken by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the body
that regulates telecommunications and therefore the Internet in the United
States, is an eminently political one. In addition, given the weight of America's
digital economic giants, it is a decision that will directly influence Europe
and the world when it comes to the ground rules among service providers,
content providers and services, and the citizen-consumers of the Internet.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The economic,
political and judicial battle across the Atlantic has raged on for months - even
years. On one hand, the Republican Party and major U.S. carriers like Verizon and
Comcast, argue that Net Neutrality - that is to say, equal access to the networks
of all content providers such as Netflix and YouTube through even the most
modest Web sites - constitutes unacceptable state interference in the functioning
of private enterprises. In their view, such a straitjacket would restrain or
prevent the investment needed to develop further infrastructure.
On the other side, the
Democratic Party and a large number of Web and Internet advocacy groups retort
that in the absence of a basic framework, the Web as we know it is doomed to
disappear, undermined by prohibitive fees, huge obstacles to innovation and a risk
to free expression. These advocates of "neutrality" have mustered an
exceptional mobilization in recent months, with four million citizens having responded
to FCC's call for public comments. In addition, in November 2014 they received the
determined support of President Barack Obama, who appealed on the FCC to classify
the Internet as a public good.
And what about Europe?
In its decision adopted
on February 26, the regulator agreed with them. The FCC has taken a firm
position in favor of Net Neutrality in the United States by enacting a series
of rules governing the activities of operators. This will in future prevent
them from favoring certain content providers by allowing them to pay more for
better access. This is a clear victory for advocates of the principle that all
content should flow through networks in the same way and at the same speed,
without privileged access or "fast lanes" for providers who agree to pay
the price.
The decision points
in the right direction. The first state intervention by Washington in the
history of the Internet, it reflects the fact that government cannot leave the ubiquitous digital revolution to regulate itself, and without a basic set of common rules that are fair and democratic. However, the FCC must now defend its desire
to regulate the Internet. In fact, everyone knows that its decision will face
multiple appeals and protests on the part of opponents.
The decision is
nevertheless highly symbolic. It shows that the American federal state cannot avoid
dealing with the Internet. Just as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
protects freedom of expression, Net Neutrality demanded legal recognition. It
is to be hoped that Europe, mired in differences among its member states and constrained
by the lobbying of telecommunications operators, will take from this some inspiration.
