Historical Context

The Origins of Conflict

In order to fully understand the events that transpired during the 2014 net neutrality protests, and the subsequent court ruling in favor of stronger laws to protect net neutrality, the history behind the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and their constant legislative struggle against telecommunication companies and Internet Service providers (ISP’s), must be explored in a way that makes clear the timeline that took place, while also providing insight into the key players that were the center of attention during the 2014 protest. The Federal Communications Commission, or (FCC), was established by the United States Government in 1934 with the task to regulate and watch over the modes of communication available to the public, (Harpham). At the time of its creation the main concern of the FCC was communication over the telephone, which persisted until newer technology such as the television came into the framework of daily used technologies. However the mission this agency held regardless of the type of communication medium was its mission to keep the modes of communication in open and fair access to all citizens of the United States, (Harpham).

Later in the 1990’s with the popularity of broadband Internet increasing, the FCC drafted a new piece of legislation, the Telecommunications act of 1996. The creation of the Telecommunications act of 1996 prompted the FCC to brand the Internet as either a Title I or Title II service, (Firth). The distinction between a Title I classification and a Title II classification would determine not only how the Internet would be considered, but the amount of power the FCC would have to regulate the Internet and the ISP’s who distributed it to the population, (Firth). It was the ruling by the FCC that the Internet should be considered an information service, which placed it under Title I giving the Government organization much less regulatory power. If they would have considered it a Telecommunication service instead it would have gone under Title II classifications, allowing the FCC much more power to regulate the Internet providers, (Firth).

The debate on how the Internet should function under the Internet Service Providers gained a new level of attention in 2005 when the FCC instituted what was known as the Open Internet Policy, which at its core was meant to create strict principles towards keeping the web a location of free expression and innovation, (Stiegler). This was most likely a response to allegations that in 2002 Comcast, the Internet service provider in question, knowingly blocked emails they deemed unfavorable from being received by Comcast email holders, as well as a legal case brought up in 2005 against a different service provider, Madison River Communications, when it became evident that they restricted their customers from using Vonage, a “Voice over Internet Protocol” that was in direct competition with their own service, (Stiegler).  It was this tampering by the ISPs that put new life into the conversation of net neutrality, and the concern that the users of an unprotected Internet would suffer at the hands of these corporations if restrictions were not implemented over how neutral the Internet should be. The legal battles between Comcast and the FCC continued past this incident to also include a very relevant topic that played a crucial role in the 2014 net neutrality debate. In 2007 the FCC brought to Issue of “throttling” to the attention of Comcast stating that the practice of throttling, or purposefully slowing down the connection speed of certain websites, went against its clearly stated policy that the Internet should serve as an equal platform for all its users, (Stiegler). Through all this, case hearing after case hearing, the amount of control the FCC actually had continued to stay minimal. This lack of progress can be traced to the back and forth political sphere within the FCC, Congress and the service provider companies.

Although the debate of net neutrality continued with hardly any true progress, a main contributor to the topic, who would later become a source for the more outspoken calls to craft the net neutrality rules, was Barack Obama,(Stiegler). His position on net neutrality was the equivalent of most of the population. He stood for clear protections on the use of the Internet, emphasizing an open Internet. His rise into the presidency allowed the influence of his rhetoric to align itself with the protest rhetoric of the general population, which all culminated in 2014.

The historical context of the movement doesn’t lie solely on the Government agencies and their inability to reign in the powers Comcast and other service providers took advantage of. It also is crucial to notice the spark of protest that grew out of interested parties outside of the legal argument. The involvement of the public, and various interest groups, can be placed starting around 2006. During this time one of the most notable attempts to get the public involved and informed about net neutrality was the Save the Internet campaign which was created by Free Press, (Stiegler). Free Press as an organization stands for its commitment to, “fight to save the free and open Internet, curb runaway media consolidation, protest press freedom, and ensure diverse voices are represented in our media,” (“Save the Internet”).  Along with Free Press, an organization that continued its campaigns to achieve their goal of an open Internet from 2006 until the year in question, many other groups contributed to the inception and formulation of the protest movement from the side of those outside the Government establishment. Some of the most recognized groups include, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Consumer Union, the American Library Association to Public Knowledge, and various others who with their devotion to set up petitions, and direct their own campaigns towards net neutrality, created a whole new dynamic that established the issue as something the citizen needed to be concerned over. This was a product of the conflation between the rhetoric of net neutrality concerned with ISP tampering of certain types of communication, the concept of the implementation of a tiered Internet system that benefited those who ISP’s favored, and the moral argument which these interest groups pushed into the meaning of net neutrality dealing with the issue of freedom of expression, civil liberties and the democratic responsibility of citizens, (Stiegler). This connection to freedom and liberty played a pivotal role in the response individuals had to fight for net neutrality, joining in on the protest by signing online petitions, sending in comments and emails to the FCC, taking part in geographically strategic protests and getting in contact with members of congress in order to make their voice heard.  Through all the prior efforts to protest the FCC into creating stricter net neutrality rules the events the occurred before 2014  represent the initial stages of the discourse. The efforts of all key players throughout this historical context led up to the creation of stronger net neutrality regulations, which appear stable for the time being seeing as the discussion on net neutrality has died down in conversation.