To mass public outcry, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed net neutrality in December. The principle of net neutrality requires that all internet service providers, such as AT&T and Spectrum treat all information on the internet the same, regardless of what it is. Companies cannot intentionally block or slow down any site, while consumers must pay a flat rate for internet content. With net neutrality repealed, internet companies are free to treat internet like cable TV by charging consumers more money for certain sites and having the ability to slow down or restrict any domain.
While the FCC claims it is giving the internet back to the people from the government, the public is skeptical of its decision, citing freedom of speech concerns and the overall out-of-touchness of the commission.
Experts have said that the repeal of net neutrality rules will favor large companies that can afford to keep themselves relevant through advertising, while hurting smaller companies that could not thrive without an open internet. Online media services like Netflix are also expected to go up in price due to the large amount of internet broadband used to stream videos. Roger L. Kay, an independent technology analyst, said that consumers “will end up paying higher prices for essentially the same service.”
I went around Chapel Hill High School to hear the overall consensus on the repeal. Did students know what net neutrality was, and, if so, were they concerned about its repeal?
Most students I talked to knew what net neutrality was due to the coverage of the FCC’s decision to repeal it, but the reasons for their concern vary from person to person.
Senior Alec Caruana believes the decision infringes on freedom of speech.
“I really enjoy political commentary. I watch a lot of debates between people with extreme views, and I respect investigative journalism. It doesn’t sit right with me that fringe voices are being suppressed,” Caruana said.
Senior Zoe Miller is concerned about the technological ramifications of the decision.
“I watched a segment about net neutrality on John Oliver,” Miller said. “The thing that shocked me the most is how this repeal would limit competition and innovation on the internet. A site like Facebook that has created thousands of jobs had a level playing field when it was created. The next Facebook doesn’t have that advantage.”
Senior Matthew Sills was uneasy about how the repeal would affect the average consumer.
“The internet is important because almost anyone has access to it,” Sills said. “When companies can charge more money per site and purposely slow down or speed up certain sites, it’s unfair to people who use the internet every day.”
My stance on net neutrality echoes my peers. Net Neutrality is not a privilege; it’s a necessity. With a resource as precious as the internet, which affects the lives of millions of people, it shouldn’t be used to make a few rich companies even richer. Our internet should be free, everyone should have access to the same sites and the FCC’s decision only reflects its complete negligence to ensure that any American has the right to use the internet. I’m incredibly disappointed by the decision, and I can only hope that net neutrality is protected at all costs.
The Senate will vote on a bill to reverse the FCC’s decision on net neutrality soon, hopefully restoring the free and fair internet the public desires.
