{"id":18616,"date":"2019-11-16T02:00:52","date_gmt":"2019-11-16T02:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=18616"},"modified":"2019-11-17T03:02:25","modified_gmt":"2019-11-17T03:02:25","slug":"cities-and-states-take-up-the-battle-for-an-open-internet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/cities-and-states-take-up-the-battle-for-an-open-internet\/","title":{"rendered":"Cities and states take up the battle for an open internet"},"content":{"rendered":"

David Elliot Berman<\/a>, University of Pennsylvania<\/a><\/em> and Victor Pickard<\/a>, University of Pennsylvania<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon are free to slow down, block or prioritize internet traffic<\/a> as they wish, without interference by the federal government. That\u2019s the effect of an October ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding a 2017 ruling by the Federal Communications Commission<\/a> that reversed rules requiring what is called \u201cnet neutrality<\/a>\u201d \u2013 treating all internet traffic equally, regardless of where it\u2019s from or what kind of data it is.<\/p>\n

Giving corporate telecom giants this power is wildly unpopular among the American people<\/a>, who know that these companies have overcharged customers<\/a> and interfered with users\u2019 internet access<\/a> in the past.<\/p>\n

However, people who advocate for an open internet, free of corporate roadblocks, might find solace in another aspect of the court\u2019s ruling: States and local governments may be able to mandate their own net neutrality rules<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The effort is underway<\/h2>\n

Governors in six states \u2013 Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont \u2013 have already signed executive orders enforcing net neutrality by prohibiting state agencies from doing business with internet service providers that limit customers\u2019 online access. Four states have passed their own laws requiring internet companies to treat all online content equally<\/a>: California, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. A New Hampshire bill<\/a> is in the works.<\/p>\n

More than 100 mayors<\/a> representing both large urban centers such as San Francisco and small cities such as Edmond, Oklahoma, have pledged not to sign contracts with internet service providers that violate net neutrality.<\/p>\n

These mayors are leveraging the lucrative contracts that their municipalities have with internet providers to wire public schools, libraries and local government buildings to pressure these companies into observing net neutrality throughout the city.<\/p>\n

The emerging patchwork of local- and state-level net neutrality legislation could help ensure that millions of Americans have access to an open internet. However, people living outside of these enclaves will still be vulnerable to the whims of for-profit internet service providers. In our new book, \u201cAfter Net Neutrality: A New Deal for the Digital Age<\/a>,\u201d we argue that the best way to protect the public interest is to remove internet service from the commercial market and treat broadband as a public utility.<\/p>\n