Legal gaps in the issue of “network neutrality” – Mehr News Agency | Iran and world’s news
According to the Mehr News Agency, researchers from the Hudson Institute (one of the study centers in the United States) have studied the legal gaps in the issue of “network neutrality” in a study. This report has been translated into Persian by the International Studies Group of the Cyberspace Research Institute.
Biden, who has campaigned for “network neutrality” during his campaign, has recently taken a number of positions, including the appointment of a new head of the Federal Communications Commission and the election of “Tim Wu,” known as the network’s father of neutrality. The economy has shown serious determination to deliver on its promises.
Now the fundamental question is, what is the basis of Biden’s government in the face of “network neutrality”? What impact will the new decisions and regulations have on companies such as AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Comcast, Charter, and countless small and large Internet service providers across the United States? And what impact does that have on the average American Internet access?
To find the answers to these questions, we first look at three key issues related to network neutrality.
What exactly does network neutrality mean?
The answer to this question is the most difficult part of the problem. There are very few provisions of the Communications Act that are as compelling and exciting as the concept of “network neutrality”. In 2014, the issue came to the attention of HBO comedian John Oliver, and excerpts from his performance became so prominent that he eventually became unavailable on the Federal Communications Commission’s website due to high traffic. Became users.
Although there is a great deal of enthusiasm for discussing the issue of “network neutrality” and most Americans are in favor of this approach on an important issue such as the Internet, there is no common understanding on this issue.
If you ask fans of network neutrality what this approach involves, you will most likely come across puzzled answers and looks; Because this issue is still puzzling and changing. Network neutrality encompassed a set of principles about 17 years ago, another set six years ago, and perhaps even now, principles different from all the previous ones.
Today, most experts believe that network neutrality does not mean that websites are not blocked by Internet service providers, but by no means does it mean the complete release of content on the Internet.
To better understand this rule, it is enough to take a look at the daily statistics of blocked user accounts on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. Every day, the accounts of countless people are blocked by platforms due to non-compliance with community rules and standards.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the Internet Neutrality Act, although it means that service providers do not block content publishing platforms, allows the removal of harmful and destructive content according to the existing rules by the platforms.
What will the US Federal Communications Commission do in 2021 to neutralize the network?
The answer to this question is not as simple as it seems. The Commission spent most of its time from 2008 to 2015 trying to write a law on network neutrality that would be approved by the United States judiciary. The efforts of this commission, after initial failures, finally came to fruition in 2015. Of course, these laws were short-lived and only lasted 2 years. Two years later, the Federal Communications Commission quickly changed the rules for 2015.
It may revive the 2015 Laws Commission, citing Chapter 2 of the 1934 Communications Act. At first glance, since these laws are approved by at least one court, this method seems simple, but because the neutrality of the network to date, not only has no legal meaning, but there is not even a defined term for it, so the Communications Commission The US Federal Reserve is not bound by any specific principles and the Commission can set any standard it wishes.
Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the common approaches to Chapter II of the 1934 Communications Act is that they all involve many legal obligations that are generally meaningless to Internet service providers. This disproportion is predictable, since the Communications Act of 1934 was written to regulate landline telephone services.
In 2015, although the law was written in accordance with the 1934 Principles, the Commission preferred to implement the law with a tolerant approach. Therefore, the US Federal Communications Commission may in the future be required by a court that doubts the legality of this method to fully implement the law. On the other hand, even if tolerance is found with legal service providers, it will certainly not be a guarantee that the method will last long. At best, this soft approach is the only benefit of the ongoing goodwill of a five-member US presidential nominee.
Is there a middle ground for network neutrality?
Over the past few years, some of the largest Internet service providers have asked Congress and the US Federal Communications Commission for a middle ground. Obviously, large Internet service providers are not satisfied with the existence of variable regulations, which are generally designed to attract public attention. So far, however, Congress or the Federal Communications Commission have not shown a strong resolve to take a simple, moderate approach to network neutrality.
With the inauguration of the fifth director of the Federal Communications Commission later this year, the commission’s Republican minority pressure on the Democratic majority to find a middle ground will begin, and that pressure may lead to change. If the Democratic members of the commission prefer to adopt a trans-sectarian approach instead of just following their party line, innovative developments in this field will not be out of the question.
The Commission may be able to enact a network neutrality law on its own, with or without a middle ground. However, given the numerous legal loopholes, if one day a court seeks a legal basis for any kind of network neutrality, the Commission will not be able to defend its positions.
.