When both sides supposedly want fair distribution of information, how do you know who to trust?
Last week, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in favor of net neutrality, meaning that Internet Service Providers cannot prioritize access to some websites above others.
The FCC has been advocating for an “open internet” in which private companies with private interests can’t control what information can be accessed by who, but critics say that the FCC might actually be part of the problem.
While some like the idea of keeping the flow of information free from individual ISP’s, others think the FCC having the power to determine how information is streamed online doesn’t exactly align with the open internet ideal. In other words, some are scared of the FCC having too much power while others are scared of ISP’s having too much power. Who should we really be scared of? How do we know who’s really on the people’s side? I’d side with the guys who’ve been around for 80 years and have yet to screw us over.
The FCC has been around since 1934, to “make available… without discrimination… Nation-wide and world-wide… communication service with adequate facilities and reasonable charges.” Decades later, we’ve yet to experience any unfair manipulation of public information like what everyone’s trying to avoid. True enough, any one person or group of people with power have the option to misuse it if possible, but an honest track record is a fairly decent indicator of whether or not they would go that route.
I’m happy with how the vote turned out. What about you?