This principle is the central reason for the success of the Internet. Net Neutrality is crucial for innovation, competition and for the free flow of information. Most importantly, Net Neutrality gives the Internet its ability to generate new means of exercising civil rights such as the freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information.
On Tuesday November 21, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stated that they plan to hold a vote to remove net neutrality rules on internet providers. Ajit Pai, the Trump appointed current FCC chief, wants to remove specific regulations placed by the Obama Administration. By doing so, internet service providers will no longer have to allow equal access to various websites, apps and content. Currently, regardless of source, all resources on the internet are equally accessible. Without net neutrality, internet providers can make certain websites load faster or slower at their own discretion. For content companies that choose not to pay, providers can make their content extremely slow or even completely block access (Donnelly, 2017).
Before we begin discussing the consequences of losing net neutrality, we must first understand how it came about. In 2015, the FCC “[reclassified] internet providers’ offerings as telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act” (Kastrenakes, 2015). This is a win for supporters of equal access to the internet, as it means providers will be subject to “strict net neutrality rules, including prohibitions on site and app blocking, speed throttling, and paid fast lanes” (Kastrenakes, 2015). On top of that, these rules apply to mobile internet as well. All of this ensures that internet service providers are not able to charge consumers arbitrarily high prices for faster internet service, slow down service when browsing specific websites, or restrict access to specific websites and content, thus allowing for an equal internet access to all. This “equality” in access entails consistent internet speeds at every and any website, and that every user of the internet are able to enjoy the benefits of net neutrality regardless of their internet service provider.
However, earlier in April this year, Pai openly expressed that he wants to “reverse the mistake of Title II and return to the light touch framework …” (Kastrenakes, 2017). In other words, Pai wishes to reclassify internet service as Title I, which will essentially limit the FCC’s power to strictly regulate internet service providers. The reasons for Pai’s decision to dismantle regulations is because he believes that with less administration, the market will achieve more beneficial growth. He wants an “open internet” market in which prices are governed by supply and demand, similar to that of broadband. With broadband, users pay for every channel they wish to have and prices are determined by consumer demand (Donnelly, 2017). Without these regulations, internet service providers can begin charging companies like Google and Microsoft to compensate for their bandwidth-heavy services. Arguments currently for keeping net neutrality include the freedom of speech and expression, promotion of competition and innovation and prevention of internet “fast lanes.” Others argue that because of these regulations, the internet currently has a lack of network innovation, easily accessible age-sensitive content and no free internet access (Curtis, 2017).
To understand the concept of net neutrality better, consider Amazon and FedEx. Mailing and distribution companies like FedEx and DHL are in charge of transporting packages from retail companies like Amazon and Abercrombie. These retail companies use the service of transportation to meet the needs of their customers by delivering packages safely and on time. Similar to this business model, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide the infrastructure necessary for websites such as Netflix and YouTube to function. Like FedEx provides the trucks, flights and cargo containers needed for transportation of goods, ISPs provide the wires and other infrastructure needed for data to be transported from websites to users of the Internet. They play a key role in connecting the producers to consumers in the Digital Age. Without them being the middleman, websites would have to invest on their own infrastructure which would be inefficient and a waste of money. ISP’s feel they should be rewarded more for being the backbone of data transmission in today’s connected society.
Ajit Pai later on included that there would be many benefits to the economy and job market by overturning the current landmark protections put in place under Barack Obama. His main arguments fall under the fact that he strongly believes that there will be “greater investment in digital infrastructure” (White, 2017). By making the internet more competitive for the providers, the consumers would decide which companies succeed or fail. Pai has mentioned that stating that the internet is a utility has hurt both the business and consumers alike, and that commissioners voting for the change want to impose rules that would “cost providers money and led them to invest less money in expanding connectivity” (White, 2017). With the increased investment, he has projected that there will be “… created jobs, increased competition, and better, faster, and cheaper internet access – especially in rural America” (White, 2017). Pai’s supporters agree that this potential move is long overdue due to the fact that we live in a new era of news consumption.
Net neutrality is not only crucial to consumers, but it is also important to businesses. Many companies rely on the open internet, particularly small businesses. For example, startups use the open internet to launch their businesses, entrepreneurs use the open internet to advertise their products, and small businesses use it to retain good communication with their customers (. The open internet has proven to be vital to a small business’s growth and maintenance of a stable business model. Net neutrality is important to small businesses because it decreases the barriers of entry, allowing them to use the open internet to sustain their businesses. Many revolutionary companies, such as Facebook, would never have become the businesses they are today without net neutrality (Free Press, 2017). Net neutrality allows small companies the chance to grow and become successful in the market by creating an even playing field for those businesses.
Potential effects of losing net neutrality include stifling competition and hindering the growth of smaller companies and startups. ISP’s would be allowed to charge institutions for priority in access to their websites (Denisenko, 2017). Many startups cannot afford the same level of preferential treatment as already established big companies already in the space. It would be hard for any up and coming website to direct traffic to their domain, and thus many tech companies can easily be squashed by the bigger players before they even begin (Denisenko, 2017). Ultimately, this will cause a decrease in innovation as competition is essentially eliminated in the industry.
Once net neutrality is overturned, the consumers are at risk to lose many rights and freedoms. For example, the freedom of press can be threatened because the ISP’s would have the right to slow down any traffic on the internet as they see fit (Piltch, 2017). The flow of information could be easily hindered and inherently manipulated. If, for example, the ISP disagrees with a publisher on a certain issue, then they can l
egally block access to that article or perhaps even the entire website in general (Piltch, 2017). This lack of regulation gives too much authority to the ISP to essentially censor the internet, which is the source of many people’s information today. The effects of this can be drastic if left unchecked, such as swaying elections and promoting propaganda (Piltch, 2017).
Net Neutrality is also fundamental in ensuring the proper representation of all types of people, namely minorities. Mainstream media have been a large contributor to the misrepresentation and marginalization of people of color. As people of color do not own a large share of broadcast stations, they have proportionately little control over how they are portrayed and represented. Due to the lack of diverse ownership and power, the media has gotten away with criminalizing and stereotyping people and communities of color (“Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now,” 2017). The open internet allows for a platform in which people can voice their opinions and share their stories; it also opens up the opportunities for oppressed minorities to organize for social and racial justice. The open internet gives these communities with a limited voice the power to ‘bypass traditional media gatekeepers’ (“Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now,” 2017). However, without Net Neutrality, ISPs have the authority to block speech and prevent these voices from exercising their freedom of speech online. Additionally, net neutrality ensures that smaller businesses have a chance at competing against larger online corporations, which limits the large economic gap between the majority and minorities of color, who run these larger and smaller businesses, respectively.
The proposal circulated before Thanksgiving to end net neutrality goes to a vote when the FCC meets on December 14, with the vote expected to go 3-2 along party lines to approval his new rules.
After years of debate, uncertainty, and reversals, that vote in two weeks means the end of net neutrality’s story at the FCC. But that doesn’t mean telecommunications companies like Comcast and AT&T will immediately be able to roll out tiered internet plans and start throttling site speeds. In all likelihood, the next stop for net neutrality will be the courts — and Pai figures to face an uphill battle to get judges to agree with his new rules.telecommunications companies like Comcast and AT&T will immediately be able to roll out tiered internet plans and start throttling site speeds. In all likelihood, the next stop for net neutrality will be the courts — and Pai figures to face an uphill battle to get judges to agree with his new rules.
There’s a very simple reason for that: Federal agencies like the FCC can’t change existing rules just because they want to. The fact that a Trump appointee like Pai disagrees philosophically with the Obama-era FCC’s position on net neutrality isn’t in and of itself justification to change the rules.
Pai and the FCC have to make a fact-based argument to do away with net neutrality. If they can’t do that, even a court full of Republican judicial appointees would be compelled to strike down the FCC’s decision and preserve net neutrality.
You can find Pai’s rationale right at the top of the text he circulated ahead of the December 14 meeting: “In 2015, the Commission imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulation on Internet service providers (ISPs),” he writes. “Since then, broadband investment has fallen for two years in a row — the first time that that’s happened outside a recession in the Internet era. And new services have been delayed or scuttled by a regulatory environment that stifles innovation.”
The major problem with net neutrality is that the internet will become a pay to play if neutrality is not kept. Major companies like Facebook and Google will be fine, but the smaller corporations will not be as lucky. If they cannot pay, the speed of their sites will be slower than the companies that can pay. This could potentially create a monopoly of the sites that exist on the internet. Users will not want to deal with the slower speeds and instead only use sites with high speed connection. When that happens, the smaller corporations will go out of business and that is not good for competition. Competition is key in driving down prices and for the development of better products. If there is a monopoly, they can set prices with relatively no control by other market factors.
In the week since the Federal Communications Commission released a plan to scrap existing rules for internet delivery, more than 200,000 phone calls, organized through online campaigns, have been placed to Congress in protest. An additional 500,000 comments have been left on the agency’s website. On social media sites like Twitter and Reddit, the issue has been a leading topic of discussion.
In some cases, views on the sweeping change, which would repeal landmark regulations meant to ensure an open internet, have turned into personal attacks. The agency’s chairman, Ajit Pai, said threatening calls and emails had poured into his home and his wife’s work. An image of a protest poster with his children’s names was posted online and spread widely. Ethnic slurs aimed at Mr. Pai, whose parents immigrated from India, littered his Twitter feed.
There are also echoes of the 2016 presidential election, with accusations that not all of the reaction is coming from Americans. The federal agency is for the first time dealing with a powerful technology foe as automated software, known as bots, appears to have sent many comments to the site, according to data researchers.
And at least 400,000 comments about the issue since April on the F.C.C. site appear to have originated from an apartment in St. Petersburg, Russia, the agency said. It is unclear whether the emails did originate from there, or were made to look as if they did.