The discussions of Net Neutrality are still very much current in the media and with US lawmakers. Although the FCC, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, voted to partially repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order in December of 2017, classifying Internet access once again as an information service, there is considerable information and future plans that have yet to be disclosed with the public. While the general vote and extremely brief overview (https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom) was provided to the US public, we are still in the dark in regards to future plans regarding Net Neutrality rules. We still do not know if “Internet Fastlanes” will appear or if ISPs will eventually begin to introduce tiered packages and discriminate network traffic based on content or the producer. The only real information the FCC has provided in regards to these issues was the satirical video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg) where Ajit Pai addressed some of these concerns, but was heavily criticized as Pai seems to be mocking those who fear the removal of Net Neutrality laws.
The dismantling of the Obama-era administration Internet regulations are still ongoing, and there is considerable resistance from not only the public and public advocacy groups, but also from many legislators, particularly Democrats. Additional steps are being taken to ensure that issues, such as the notion of “Internet Fastlanes”, are properly brought to legislative boards. The “Open Internet Preservation Act”( https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2017/12/net-neutrality-bill.pdf?tid=a_mcntx), proposed by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) in late December restores two of the most important provisions of the FCC’s net neutrality rules: a ban on the blocking of websites, as well as a ban on the slowing of websites. It also includes the same public disclosure requirements Internet providers must abide by under the FCC’s decision December of last year. Unfortunately, the bill lacked any information in regards to ISP paid prioritization that was included in previous Net Neutrality regulations.
Later this month, The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on internet fast lanes, a major source of concern for Net Neutrality supporters and a point where bipartisan agreement has failed in the past. This is a main area concern that has seen disagreement from both sides of the political spectrum and is arguably one of the largest turning points for how the internet, on the large scale, in an economic sense. Despite such discussions, Democratic and Republican conflicts on the issues of Net Neutrality continue to occur. Despite strong support from Republicans, many support the notion of replacing net neutrality rules with stronger and permanent legislation, “They argue that codifying the principles into law will end the regulatory uncertainty that the telecom industry faces with the prospect that the rules will change every time the White House switches parties.” However, Democrats are unhappy with this since Republicans currently have the majority, and “believe that any bill that a GOP-dominated Congress can come up with will be toothless compared to the 2015 regulation”
Additionally, lawmakers in Massachusetts are pushing for a state solution to fill in the several potential gaps left by the removal of the Obama-era regualtions. According to an article by Government Technology, “A proposal by a special Senate committee Wednesday, backed by dozens of lawmakers, seeks to promote net neutrality through state contracts and protect consumer privacy by barring internet service providers from collecting, using or disseminating personal data without consent. It would also create a registry of service providers who do business in Massachusetts and prohibit practices such as “throttling” down the speed of some internet content while prioritizing content from those who pay more.” The bill is aimed to get ahead of any future regulations that may be implemented by the FCC and the federal level and provide added regulations to provide the public with added security.
Looking to the future, we should advocate for change for Net Neutrality where bipartisan agreement can be found and ensure that major issues such as specific network throttling and consumer rights violations are properly addressed when creating new regulations on Net Neutrality.
What happens over the next few months in regards to net neutrality law is hugely important and will determine the fate of the internet (at least for the next few years, and these years). Any precedents set now, especially internet fast-lanes and website blocking, will be hard to overturn in the future.
I rewatch the Ajit Pai video you linked (I had watched it for the first time when it came back). When I first saw it, my initial reaction was “he’s totally missing the point here,” and after rewatching the video, I only agree with that sentiment more. Pai’s main argument, ignoring the ridiculous fidget spinner and eclipse glasses gag, is that even with the net neutrality changes he wants to push through, people will still be able to do what they want on the internet.
This isn’t entirely true. Internet fast lanes and throttling would choke companies that haven’t already established themselves. Being an up-and-coming web-based company is already hard enough, but interference from ISPs because you can’t afford to pay them off only makes matters worse. The tech giants that are already established wouldn’t have any trouble paying the toll (although some, like Netflix, may have to pass this cost on to their users), but these restrictions would choke competition from startups.
For those established companies like Netflix (you can stream Game of Thrones) and Amazon (you can buy fidget spinners in bulk), there probably wouldn’t be a noticeable difference. But that simply isn’t the point. The point is that these regulations would make it harder for fledgling tech companies, which already have enough to worry about, to break into their markets and establish themselves. Tech titans have already carved out large sections of the web (imagine trying to launch a Facebook competitor; unless your service was very niche, and offered a lot of features specifically targeted at that niche, it would have no chance), and these regulations would only make it harder for competition to find its footing.
Net Neutrality does not help to spur competition, it helps to eliminate it, and to create a climate in which startups wouldn’t want to compete in the first place.
Net neutrality is something that our generation should really be in support of, especially since we spend massive amounts of time on the internet. A majority of young people in America are classified as Democrats. This aligns with your description of net neutrality supporters and oppressors, with Democrats being for net neutrality and Republicans being against. That being said, I do not think that official legislation should be signed to eliminate the questions revolving around the net neutrality debate. Currently, the young people of America (major internet users) are not in political positions. Therefore, if we were to allow the current politicians to make indefinite decisions about the internet without our input, a long-run damaging decision might be made.
However, I don’t necessarily want to wait around to see what the FCC decides about net neutrality policy either. The decisions made in December of 2017 were quite beneficial. A ban on blocking and slowing certain websites is essential to a core value of America: freedom. When hearing of the possibility of banning certain websites, I can’t help but think of the controlling authorities of North Korea and Russia. Now I know this isn’t to the same extreme, however, in the United States, we expect a standard of freedom (including the internet we use). Restricting the websites we can visit would encroach on that right.
Going back to the decisions of December 2017, it is my hope that the FCC continues down this policy path and maybe we will have hope of coming close to net neutrality once again.
To conclude my comments on your civic issue blog, I just want to say that I am very uneducated in the realm of net neutrality and such but reading your blog helped me understand the stakes of the issue and why I should care. So, thanks!