OPINION: Why the repeal of Net Neutrality will not end the world
On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to repeal regulations regarding Net Neutrality.
With a term coined in the early 2000’s, Net Neutrality was beefed up by the Obama administration as a way to “save the internet." But what it looked like, to some, was just another power grab committed by the federal government.
Tom Wheeler, Ajit Pai’s predecessor as FCC chairman, made the move to classify Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as “common carriers” under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. This means ISPs could have become regulated like monopolies. “That could go as far as setting rates for broadband, like public utilities commissions do for electricity,” writes Sean Captain of Fast Company. How does setting rates for ISPs foster competition and product development?
One reason why the repeal was so polarized was because of- dare I say it- Fake News.
Many opponents of the repeal spread outlandish claims that were designed to strike fear within the minds of the American people. For example: many people have pushed the notion that “Tweets will now cost $3 a piece and YouTube videos will cost $1 a minute.” This is unequivocally false, not supported by any data whatsoever. These talking points are nothing more than fear mongering. Sadly, many people went along with these claims, fearing the internet as they knew would vanish.
Another reason why supporters of Net Neutrality were afraid was because without the regulations, the ISPs would rise to power, trampling over the average consumer. I personally have witnessed many conversations that ultimately amount to “the big companies don’t like Net Neutrality, so that means I should.” Although I agree that all large businesses can be prone to corruption and greed, the irony is that some of the largest companies in the world oppose the FCC. Companies such as Google, Facebook, and Netflix all have their hands in the fight for Net Neutrality. Why is that? Well, there’s a possible explanation. The FCC has directly stated that companies will be required to become more transparent with its consumers under Title II. Now obviously, Internet Service Providers are different from social media companies and search engines. Title II (which bans throttling, blocking, and paid prioritization by ISPs) also only includes entities such as Verizon, AT&T, etc. Unknown to most, companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter all have a history of censoring those who don’t share the same political beliefs as them. Perhaps they’re afraid of the veil being lifted? If ISPs are required to become transparent with its user base, soon, other companies may be forced to follow in the court of public opinion.
Therefore, the market should be in control of the internet.
If people become aware of throttling or blocking, the beauty of the free market is that the consumer is the one who decides the fate of the company. You decide if you want to buy into the scheme, it's your choice. From the Restoring Internet Order, The FCC writes:
“We require ISPs to be transparent. Disclosure of network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service is important for Internet freedom because it helps consumers choose what works best for them and enables entrepreneurs and other small businesses to get technical information needed to innovate.”
So finally, why did the FCC want to repeal Net Neutrality anyway?
Proponents of the order argue that regulations burden small, rural ISPs.
Back in April, 22 small internet service providers wrote a letter to the FCC, claiming that they support the overall principles of Net Neutrality, but are skeptical of the financial burden it places on the company.
Elizabeth Bowles, President of Aristotle Unified Communications (a small ISP), recently went before congress to ask for a “legislative amendment to net neutrality rules that would permanently exempt small ISPs” from the 2015 FCC ruling. “Aristotle supports the bright-line principles of net neutrality—no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization,” says Bowles. “However, the FCC used a 1934 statute, Title II, to enact these principles and created unintended problems for small ISPs, who currently are not subject to Title II.”
The whole repeal was done so that the market would be in the hands of the consumer. No more unnecessary regulation, no more burden. The principle of Net Neutrality may sound good, but the implementation of said principles is what’s causing this uproar.
Personally, I side with Bowles. If the FCC can eliminate throttling and paid prioritization, without setting rates and burdening small ISPs, then perhaps Net Neutrality isn’t such a bad idea. The main point of this article was to dispel the notion that the internet will be destroyed.
Unfortunately, we live in a society where Fake News runs rampant on all sides of the aisle.
Works Cited
Captain, S. (2017, August 17). The Real Reason ISPs Hate Net Neutrality Regulation. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.fastcompany.com/40450516/the-real-reason-isps-hate-net-neutrality-regulation
Horaczek, S. (2017, December 15). 11 lies you may have heard about net neutrality. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-lies#page-3
Ending net neutrality will save the internet, not destroy it. (n.d.). Retrieved December 28, 2017, from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/16/ending-net-neutrality-will-save-internet-not-destroy-it.html
Skorup, B. (2016, June 20). Net Neutrality Is Government Censorship. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436807/net-neutrality-government-control
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf
https://www.slashgear.com/net-neutrality-an-ugly-debate-where-nobody-wins-13491380/