During President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address last Tuesday, he commented net neutrality, and gave a statement that outlined his stance on the controversial issue.

“I intend to protect a free and open Internet, extend its reach to every classroom and every community and help folks build the fastest networks so that the next generation of digital innovators and entrepreneurs have the platform to keep reshaping our world,” Obama said in his speech.

With the Federal Communications Commission reviewing new regulations for Internet service providers, Obama’s statement comes at a crucial time in technological history.

“It is such an integral part of society that now the Internet is a utility,” said Brad Gorham, an associate professor in Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.

Net neutrality is the concept that all data on the Internet should be treated equally by corporations, such as Internet service providers and governments, regardless of content, user, platform, application or device, according to Investopedia, a website aimed at educating the world about finance. Enforcing net neutrality means service providers can’t charge companies in order to provide faster access to their websites.

One important conflict that has engulfed the discussion of net neutrality is the question of whether or not Internet service providers have the right to place a fee on the speed at which certain products or websites are accessed online.

Gorham said there would be many unintended consequences if the FCC does allow service providers to charge companies for faster speed to their websites.

“Once you give them that option, it gives them an advantage,” he said.

Obama is specifically asking the FCC to make broadband a telecommunications service. If put into motion, broadband will not fall under the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits state and local taxation of Internet service, but not telecommunication-related fees.

Newhouse Dean Emeritus David Rubin said he believes that whatever the FCC decides to do, or whatever Congress imposes on the FCC, the other side will sue due to the large amount of litigation over the issue.

“Republicans don’t want to see the FCC regulate anything,” he said. “If the president and the senate agree that net neutrality is a principle then the issue will become what the role of the FCC is in regulation.”

Rubin said he is personally opposed to tier pricing due to it being “rife with manipulation.” He said he thinks that instead of encouraging competition or new websites, tiered prices will instead benefit a few dominant websites, which he believes is not healthy.

Anthony Rotolo, the director of the online master’s program in communications, said he believes equal access to the Internet is becoming a fundamental right and should be an extension of freedom of speech. Without net neutrality, the for-profit companies will stifle creation that has driven success in the past, he added.

“The Internet has been like the wild west for a while,” Rotolo said. “I don’t say no entirely to less net neutrality because there is room for different access.”

If the FCC does allow service providers to charge users for different levels of speed to their websites, Rotolo said that there would immediately be a greater income divide because “people with less money wouldn’t be able to afford the fastest speed.”

Rotolo said Obama’s statement on net neutrality was “groundbreaking” and he is supportive of the president’s view. He said he believes that by calling on the FCC and expressing his view of the Internet as a public utility, the president is framing the issue of net neutrality in a different way.

“I would say that my hopes aren’t very high. The Internet will become less neutral over time,” Rotolo said. “I am feeling pessimistic, but I hope that changes.”

Published on January 27, 2015 at 12:01 am

Contact Katelyn: kmfaubel@syr.edu