Without net neutrality, ISPs would have the option to strictly block anyone that disagreed with their views politically or if ISPs felt like they could use a boost economically by charging their customers more for the use of a website such as Facebook, Twitter or Netflix. For example, Comcast could throttle and slow down your internet speed for accessing Netflix, while accessing Hulu would be normal. Many people do not know what net neutrality or even heard of it before, even though it impacts us daily with our use of the internet. The internet has been integrated into our lives in the recent past couple decades, and it is still a new system. The internet provides us with entertainment, social media, music, news and anything else imaginable. Net neutrality is the sole reason why there hasn’t been any complications in the industry. It prohibits any internet service providers(ISPs) from having the ability to block, restrict or throttle their consumers of their free will. This hasn’t been an issue until recently, in January 2017, a newly elected chairman of the Federal Communications Commissions(FCC), Ajit Pai has introduced a new proposition that includes destroying the principle of net neutrality.
Currently the internet is classified as a Title II utility and has protected net neutrality since 2015 but, Ajit Pai’s proposal of “Restoring Internet Freedom” includes reclassifying the internet as a Title I. The Title II policy puts the internet in the utility category, including the use of gas, water and electricity. Title II allows the government to regulate the industry based on complaints from its competitors and customers on what is unfair or irrational. With this proposal, the FCC states to lower the amount of regulation currently to improve productivity throughout telecommunications. (FCC) The FCC plans to further inspect the Title II rules and the internet industry to conclude whether intervention from the government is required. The FCC expects the proposal to solidify any vague details and reduce complications regarding the policy. The result of the proposal should improve the internet by composing a better, faster and more accessible service throughout the country.
The FCC regulates the radio, television, wire, satellite and cable business in all 50 states of the US. They are responsible for maintaining a fair, balanced and competitive environment for all these types of different businesses. The FCC encourages competition, innovation and technological advancement that benefits consumers and businesses in their use. The FCC believes that by ensuring appropriate regulation via communication to all industries, it will result in promoting competition, innovation and investment. (FCC) The FCC rules of telecommunications require ISPs to be transparent about their services, such as providing all the necessary details about their variety of choices of speed, price and management practices. False information from ISPs could jeopardize their industry as reports from consumers and competitors are valid for the FCC to look over.
The FCC is led by five commissioners selected by the president and further supported by the US senate. The current commissioners are Republican, Ajit Pai, Democratic Mignon Clyburn, Republican Michael O’Rielly, Republican Brendan Carr, and Democratic Jessica Rosenworcel. There is one chairman chosen from the five commissioners with the recent chairman being Ajit Pai appointed by Donald Trump in January of 2017. Brendan Carr and Ajit Pai were recently appointed by Donald Trump in 2017 while Mignon Clyburn, Michael O’Rielly, and Jessica Rosenworcel were appointed by Barack Obama when he was still in office for President of the United States. The two female commissioners of the FCC, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenwrocel are currently with the fight of net neutrality by supporting to defend net neutrality. We as citizens and consumers need to convince at least one other commissioner of the FCC to vote to defend our right of net neutrality to win the battle. With the new chairman and commissioner being appointed by Donald Trump of the republican party, we are at stake more than ever on losing net neutrality, the FCC are more intent to remove net neutrality.
The FCC’s process of creating rules is known as “notice and comment”. The process includes revealing to the public their considerations and ideas into their rules. From there the FCC takes comments from the public into consideration to factor into their decision making into their rules. This may include from going through with their proposal, changing the proposal, abandoning the proposal, and improvising a brand-new idea. The public also has the ability evaluate the FCC committees based on the opinions of consumers, industry and officials. The Government Printing Office also has a role in making rules as they regulate and maintain what the FCC does in terms of rulemaking. Both the public and the government work together to conclude a solution to new rules that satisfy everyone throughout the United States. The government is our way of stopping Pai’s classification via notifying our representatives in Congress and senators to potentially influence their vote against the destruction of net neutrality. With the number of Republicans in Congress being pressured by their party and leaders to oppose net neutrality, our voices can potentially break their bond of following in their party’s steps and concluding a beneficial vote to protecting net neutrality and helping consumers.
Net neutrality doesn’t just affect the United States, other countries around the world have similar and different policies when it comes to net neutrality. In the United Kingdom, majority of its households use four different service providers resulting in intense competition between its competitors. As opposed to the United States, having a standard base internet plan for all its customers, the intensive United Kingdom competition between its ISPs results in improving quality of services, net neutrality was never really an issue in the United Kingdom according to Hassan Habibi Gharakheili, Arun Vishwanath, Vijay Sivaraman. The United Kingdom’s industry is inclined to consistently improve to outdo their competitors rather than maximizing their profits by benefiting off the consumer’s use.
Similarly, the European Union(EU) population also has many different service providers. However, in April 2014, the European Parliament voted to implement net neutrality rules that would regulate ISPs and their use of fast lanes on certain websites such as Netflix. Fast lanes are where people receive faster connection and speeds to a product because they are willing to pay more than the average user. This prevented ISPs from charging consumers extra for their heavy data use on services that require it. On March 2, 2015, the EU agreed that some special services could create fast lanes and blocking of reasonable content. For example, content that may be government related can be blocked and slowing other internet traffic to improve congestion for everyone. Although fast lanes and blocking were approved, ISPs required a standard of access for consumers that allowed content to load in a satisfied manner.
Canada, similarly to the United States, does have net neutrality rules that includes ISPs sending their network and traffic database to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The CRTC analyzes the reports of complaints they receive from competitors and consumers to determine if any action is required. However, there is no known punishment to those ISPs that do not follow this policy or limits on throttling
Chile and Brazil have regulated net neutrality since 2010. Their policy strictly prohibits any type of blocking and content discrimination. In April 22, 2014, they passed a bill that prohibits companies to charge users based on how much data they used, additionally their use of the internet cannot be interfered with.
In East Asia, the idea of net neutrality is not particularly discussed, they have not insinuated any type of restrictions. However, Singapore providers do have the ability to provide fast lanes as they see fit. Throttling is not a problem as well, but providers are expected to provide users with reasonable speeds that are bearable.
Australia has similar standings to the UK, households have many different providers insinuating strong competition in the internet business. While net neutrality is not monitored in Australia, regions in Asia-Pacific are investigating the importance of internet use relating to economic and social growth. They expect public services to be able to compete with private services to enhance competition.
Although internationally there are many differences and similarities regarding net neutrality, the outcome of net neutrality could potentially set the new norm for countries around the world. In “Perspectives on Net Neutrality and Internet Fast-Lanes” by Hassan Habibi Gharakheili, Arun Vishwanath, Vijay Sivaraman, they propose an alternate solution to net neutrality by introducing three separate fast lanes for content providers, ISPs and consumers. Their proposition gives flexibility on the option to charge more/extra depending on the service they require. It gives the opportunity for businesses to experiment their fast lanes to satisfy everyone’s demand of net neutrality. This proposal may seem reasonable at first glance with the variety and flexibility of fast lanes, but greed will get the best of ISPs such as Verizon and Comcast, they will take advantage of fast lanes using them to maximize their profits without appealing to consumers. ISPs always say that they won’t let greed get in the way of fairness in society, but they have always taken advantage of any profit they can.
In “Law, Social Welfare, and Net Neutrality” by Keith N. Hylton, he introduces the analogy of a toll bridge and the idea of net neutrality and fast lanes. Using this analogy, Hylton believes that net neutrality is not truly neutral because consumers have different uses of the internet. However, net neutrality can be neutral in the way that we all pay the same amount no matter what use of the internet we utilize, whether it’s for entertainment, business or school related. Hylton brings up the idea of trucks vs cars crossing bridges, where trucks have more of an impact on the wear ability of the bridge because of its weight being heavier, whereas cars are lighter and cause less wear ability. The idea of toll bridges in this analogy shows how toll bridges could charge trucks and cars differently because of its ability to damage the bridge, resulting as a comparison to net neutrality. Currently toll bridges charge all vehicles with the same price no matter the weight of the vehicle, similarity ISPs charge all users the same amount no matter the amount of data usage. Additionally, the idea of a truck buying the bridge and charging higher prices for opposing competitors is introduced as an example for net neutrality and the internet. This would make the business unfair and enable businesses to monopolize however they see fit. However, the current state of the internet business relies on a hand full of ISPs creating high speed internet as the norm. Paradox is also introduced as ISPs consistently improving resulting in more variety in choice for the consumers, increasing competition throughout the industry.
Government intervention is also introduced as internet privacy is a key part of net neutrality. Many content providers have sued ISPs to block pirate websites or sellers of fabricated products. Currently there are many sites and business still live that trick the normal human on thinking that it is the real product but when in fact it is fake. Although the policy of copyright or trademark infringement is serious, Hylton proposes a barrier in the net neutrality rules to clarify any misunderstandings regarding liability. Censorship is also a topic of interest in this regard as it may pertain to ISPs being held accountable for certain discriminations of different viewpoints. There is no easy solution to solve net neutrality as there is no clear barrier or line that sets the limits of net neutrality, the limits of how censorship, copyright, and trademark infringement is unknown. Hylton concludes that there is no easy solution to net neutrality, however he states that the current situation has many consequences and an alternative could easily provide less with as much effectiveness. Hylton proposes an alternative of the government not controlling the internet’s speech, but rather the networks themselves controlling speech. This alternative may seem intriguing, but the topic of speech on what is discriminative or offense is subjective, and shouldn’t be based on a ISP’s opinion on the topic.
Currently, the debate of net neutrality is up in the air with it being open to the public. The FCC’s focus is to go through with the idea of Title I net neutrality rather than Title II. However, the public has had outrages about their decisions. Many people have created and signed many different types of petitions relaying their voices to the FCC regarding their disagreements with the Title I proposition. Many websites have also joined the fight versus net neutrality including Twitter, Netflix, Reddit, Discord, Imgur and many other websites by showcasing what effects net neutrality will have on consumers and the internet industry. Some have blacked out their websites as well, disabling normal access to the site until consumers paid a fee. Examples also include paying extra to access a specific content that you want and loading being slower than usual. Another analogy of net neutrality would be the current system of accessing libraries, currently you can check out any genre book and it would all be equal, and fair you don’t need to pay additional fees just to check out that book. However, without net neutrality, for example, if you wanted to check out mystery books, it would cost a fee of $5 for each mystery book you checked out. Additionally, we always choose to go to the library closest to us for convenience and the next choice of library we have is far away, like how the ISP industry works, people may not always have a choice to a variety of ISPs, Comcast or Verizon might be the only available ISP that can provide service to customers.
However other business figures believe that the classification of Title II currently prevents the ability for the internet and technology industry to advance. The inability for ISPs to expand their business because of the competition of others is hindering their opportunity to improve. “of a decline in competition—increasing industry concentration, increasing profits accruing to a few firms in each industrial sector, and lower levels of firm entry and mobility. “(Brotman). Rather than spending profits on improving internet speeds, connections and stability, they are forced to advertise to keep a strong name in competition. Although this proposition may not happen and seem ridiculous, many people do agree that the current FCC rules of net neutrality and the internet needs changes to further benefit everyone.
Although there are many differences regarding net neutrality throughout every person and country, it is a serious debate currently in the US. The future of the internet is on the hands of us, the consumers to voice our opinions to the government via petitions and communicating with others in society. The future for example, could include your ISP charging you an extra $20 just to access YouTube, another $20 to access Facebook, and another $20 to use Netflix. The strength in numbers can potentially enhance the views of consumers influencing a change in the FCC’s proposal. Removing net neutrality removes the idea of the internet being a fair, innovative and uncensored industry. Keeping and defending net neutrality enables the ability for lower end businesses to succeed and improve to showcase themselves to us the consumers with the ability of choosing. Without Title II, it gives the ability of ISP giants such as Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable and any others to control our data to whatever limit they see fit. Let’s say you wanted to check out another ISP, called “A+ Internet”, to see if their internet plans and policies were better than the current service you’re using such as Verizon or Comcast, with the removal of Title II, Verizon and/or Comcast could block all access to “A+ Internet’s” website and information. You would never know if “A+ Internet” had better services than Verizon or Comcast and would not have the opportunity to change even if you wanted to. For many people they have only one available choice of an ISP and that ISP may be Verizon or Comcast, ISPs that is not preferred for consumers, but it is the only one available for their area with Verizon and Comcast intending on using Title I net neutrality to maximize their profits with throttling speeds and charging customers extra fees to access sites. The capabilities of ISPs have no limit, from censoring content they want, to charging consumers more just because they use a service, such as Facebook, Twitter, Netflix or any other sites.
There is no easy solution to permanently solving the net neutrality dilemma but, there is a first step to fix it. The FCC decides what our future will be with the vote of the five members of the FCC on the principle of net neutrality. Currently, the FCC’s five commissioners are the people that decide the future of the internet, net neutrality and our future as consumers. The two female commissioners, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel are already on our side of defending net neutrality. However, the other three members of the commission, Ajit Pai, Michael O’Rielly and Brendan Carr are currently against net neutrality and seek to destroy the idea of net neutrality. It is our responsibility to try to influence any one of these members of the FCC to join our side of defending net neutrality to win the battle. This includes spreading the word about net neutrality to get our voices heard by the FCC and government. With us being heard, it may be enough for the FCC to reconsider their proposition and revise a different solution. However, if all fails of our efforts to influencing one additional member of the FCC to join our side, we have one last opportunity to save net neutrality. Signing petitions and notifying Congress about our concerns with net neutrality is the next step that can influence the government and Congress enough for a change, as they are assigned for the public. They rely on the public’s opinion and are supposed to make changes for the benefit of everyone including consumers and the businesses to maintain balance and fairness. Congress has the last say to overturn the FCC’s proposition and salvage the principle of net neutrality. The result of the net neutrality debate could expand internationally if Title II was reversed, as many other countries can potentially follow in the lines of the US if proven successful.
Works Cited
Brotman, N. Stuart “Net neutrality 2.0: Perspectives on FCC regulation of internet service providers” Brookings 15 May 2017 Web 10 November 2017
Hylton, Keith. “Law, Social Welfare, and Net Neutrality.” Review of Industrial Organization, vol. 50, no. 4, 2017, pp. 417–429. Web. 15 Oct. 2017.
Habibi Gharakheili, Hassan, et al. “Perspectives on Net Neutrality and Internet Fast-Lanes.” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 46, no. 1, 2016, pp. 64–69. Web. 15 Oct. 2017.
Ross-Brown, Sam. “Net Neutrality and the Fight for Social Justice.” Tikkun, vol. 30, no. 3, Summer 2015, pp. 13-16. EBSCOhost Web. 15 Oct. 2017.
Rebecca R. Ruiz and Steve Lohr. “F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 15 Oct. 2017.
Finley, Klint. “The End of Net Neutrality Could Shackle the Internet of Things.” Wired. Conde Nast, 07 June 2017. Web. 15 Oct. 2017.
Free Press “Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now.” Free Press. Web. 18 Oct. 2017.
Federal Communications Commission “Restoring Internet Freedom.” 11 Aug. 2017. Web. 22 Oct. 2017.
Federal Communications Commission “Leadership.” Web. 25 Oct. 2017.
Federal Communications Commission “What We Do.” 10 July 2017. Web. 25 Oct. 2017.
Hunter College Writes 