In a ground-breaking D.C. circuit court case, Verizon v. FCC, the FCC’s anti-blocking and anti-discrimination laws were annulled from the Open Internet Order, a 2010 order released by the FCC which outlines rules on net neutrality. This pivotal decision has unlatched a pandora’s box of hypothetical concerns for the American public.
   If this decision stands, we, as a staff, are concerned for the preservation of free speech. At the heart of Verizon v. FCC lies an argument of ownership. Do broadband providers have the right to control which sites their consumers view, or is the Internet a public entity in existence for the practice of free speech?
    We feel the Internet cannot be simplified down to a common carrier in the same way phone lines can. In the same way the Internet is a public service for citizens of the world to contribute their thoughts, ideas and commerce. The content that makes up the Internet is provided by human free speech, and much of it sans any monetary gain. In this way the Internet cannot be compared to television cable. If in the aftermath of this decision broadband providers begin to filter what their consumers can and cannot view to increase their own marketing dividend, then we as a public are worried about the sanctity of free speech, a stipulation guaranteed to us in the first amendment of the United States Constitution.
   The main characteristic that sets the Internet apart from its media counterparts is its ability to remain largely uncontrolled. Man cannot control the Internet in the same way a single individual cannot control humanity. Since the Internet is daily created anew by millions of individuals, we have created a savage beauty, a paradox, an entity created by man, yet uncontrollable by man. We rely daily on an entity outside of our control. To try to control the Internet is to try to control man. Netflix is one company who has already spoken out against Verizon’s attempt to control the Internet.
    In a letter to investors reported on by The Washington Post, CEO Reed Hastings and CFO David Wells said, “Were this draconian scenario to unfold with some ISP (Internet Service Provider), we would vigorously protest and encourage our members to demand the open Internet they are paying their ISP to deliver.”
   We agree the Internet is a public entity provided by free citizens. We pay our providers for the broadband each month to view the content we, as individuals, provide. We see no reason this arrangement should change.
   If it is indeed decided broadband providers can control to whom and where they provide broadband, we are concerned for the preservation of economic equality. If left to the providers, we worry the vast majority of broadband will reside in areas made up by the upper class economic demographic, and those who are projected unable to pay the providers’ prices will be left with less broadband. It is our hope that economic profiling will not be a result of this court case. Instead, as broadband begins to be monitored it will be done equally across America.
   There is much debate as to whether or not net neutrality is an adversary to free enterprise. We do not believe free enterprise is the issue at hand. As long as individuals pay for broadband provision then it remains a symbiotic relationship between provider and consumer. If anything, net neutrality is an aid to the underdog, a medium which allows small businesses to flourish. We do not see a harm to free enterprise in net neutrality.
   As a staff we do not uphold the idea that Internet is a function comparable to television cable. Cable is a luxury, whereas the Internet is a necessity in today’s society (unless the U.S. government would like to explain to us how to buy health insurance without it). We acknowledge the Internet’s relationship with broadband providers and that their provision to end user subscribers’ ability to view edge providers’ web content is complicated and likely will serve as a complex debate in the coming months. However, it is our hope that the public’s interest and the protection of free speech remain the integral concern in all future court cases which surround net neutrality.