The Internet Doesn't Have to Be Free

A brief history of the war for Net neutrality

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This month,

my Scientific American column tackled Net neutrality, the abstruse-sounding, legally embroiled issue that pits the nation's Internet providers against lovers of free speech, even playing fields and the way things have always been.

Net neutrality has been in the news a lot lately and will continue to be—but it's not actually a new topic. In fact, you could write a whole timeline of Net neutrality's recent history…


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


2002: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by Chairman Michael Powell, decrees that broadband Internet service is not a "telecommunications service," which means that it can't be subject to the same regulations that govern old-school telephone companies. Importantly, these rules would have forced Internet providers to treat the information going through their network in the same way that telephone companies treat the information going over their lines—a total "hands-off" policy.

2004: Powell says that he's in favor of an Internet industry free from "intrusive regulation" (pdf). Instead, he challenges the broadband industry to uphold consumers' four freedoms: freedom to access any legal Internet material, to run any applications, to attach any devices to their home Internet connections and to access detailed information about their Internet provider plans.

2005: Ed Whitacre, Jr., the CEO of Southwestern Bell Corp. (which later would become AT&T), triggers a firestorm when he tells Businessweek: "We and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

2007: Comcast Internet customers begin to notice—and measure—a slowdown in their service when they're using BitTorrent (a popular peer-to-peer system, often used to download pirated movies and music).

2008: The FCC orders Comcast to stop slowing down BitTorrent traffic. "Would you be Okay…[if the postal system] opened letters mailed to you, decided that because the mail truck is full sometimes letters to you could wait, and then hid both that they read your letters and delayed them? Unfortunately, that is exactly what Comcast was doing with their subscribers' Internet traffic," said the new FCC chairman Kevin Martin. Comcast appeals.

2010: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit throws out the FCC's Comcast order. The FCC, it says, lost the power to make such orders in 2002 when it refused to classify broadband Internet as a "telecommunications service." Late in the year the FCC, led by new chairman, Julius Genachowski, issues a new set of Net-neutrality rules. Consumer advocates call them weak and compromised. For example, they apply only to wired Internet providers, not to mobile ones. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowelland others, meanwhile, condemned the rules as unnecessary and probably unenforceable. "This new effort will fail in court as well," he said.

2011: Verizon challenges the FCC's rules in court, saying that the commission doesn't have the authority to enforce such rules.

2012: AT&T, after much criticism, allows any AT&T Wireless customer with an iPhone or iPad to use Apple's FaceTime video-chatting feature over AT&T's cellular data network. (It had previously limited FaceTime to customers who had signed up for AT&T's most expensive data plans—a classic violation of Net-neutrality principles.)

2014: The D.C. Circuit Court says that Verizon is right: the FCC doesn't have the authority to enforce Net-neutrality rules. Not because the rules are misguided, but because broadband hasn’t been classified as a "telecommunications service." Based on that (some now say foolish) distinction made more than a decade ago, the FCC can't wield as much power over Net freedoms as it can for, say, the neutrality of your landline phone. Following months of reports that Comcast has been slowing down Netflix streaming video transmissions, Netflix startles the world by announcing that it has struck a deal: It will pay Comcast for faster transmission of its shows. A shiver goes down the spines of thousands, who wonder if this deal marks a concrete end of Net neutrality.

David Pogue is the anchor columnist for Yahoo Tech and host of several NOVA miniseries on PBS.

More by David Pogue
Scientific American Magazine Vol 310 Issue 4This article was published with the title “The Internet Doesn't Have to Be Free” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 310 No. 4 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican042014-5tWLMmxEp9KQnlNHIBA4RD

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe