Essay: The Importance of Net Neutrality - by Joon Ha Hwang

Image source: https://imgur.com/gallery/zfxwB

Everyone knows the experience of their Internet slowing down or disconnecting, leading to the loading circle. We all know how frustrating this can be, especially when it stops something important. But there isn’t much we can do about it because it is out of our control. Or at least, that is how things are for now.

Net neutrality is a topic that is difficult to understand, especially since the Internet is relatively new. Although the exact definition and meanings have been debated,the FCC defines net neutrality as the “jurisdiction that ensures providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled services to operate in a neutral manner.”[1]To put it simply, Internet Service Providers cannot play favorites or discriminate the access of information on the Internet. For example, Internet Service Providers can’t favour specific companies with faster access because they pay more. Nor can they discriminate by slowing access for those that cannot pay more or speak out against them.

Most people use Internet websites and social media such as YouTube and Facebook daily. But by repealing net neutrality, the slowing down on the use of these sources can be done deliberately. If I knew that my Internet Service Provider is slowing down my Internet to make me pay for faster access, I would be upset. The repeal of net neutrality can have severe consequences on the Internet such as censoring of information, predatory business tactics, and overall negative customer experience.

The Internet has become such a widespread and common experience that repealing net neutrality can affect everyone. This issue is currently being dealt with in the U.S., but that doesn’t mean we are in the clear. The problem can creep over to Canada and affect everyone around the world.

The Law Before and After

Net neutrality is relatively new, since it was officially implemented in 2015. But back in 2008, the FCC tried to make net neutrality into a legal concept because of the practices of companies like Comcast.[2]Comcast was slowing down traffic when providing Internet access over its cable lines. What this means is that before net neutrality became a law, Internet Service Providers could slow down people’s access to the Internet on a whim, usually to benefit themselves at the cost of their users. The exact way net neutrality was implemented was to make the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) be classified under Title 2, meaning that they are a common carrier and will supply their services to everyone.[3]To be specific, ISPs have to treat the Internet like other utilities such as gas and water. This makes using the Internet a right, rather than a privilege.[4]

Today, net neutrality has become an important part of protecting the free and open communication on the Internet. [5]Net neutrality laws protect us, allowing us to do things like communicate with others without worrying about someone cutting us off. What the FCC voted on is to repeal the Title 2 classification that ISPs fall under, which means that the Internet will not be considered a public service and allow ISPs to control who accesses it.[6]Without net neutrality, our free speech and access to the Internet can be restricted by the powerful corporations that control our access to the Internet.

Image source: https://imgur.com/gallery/zfxwB

What does capitalism mean?

As with many things, capitalism can mean a lot of different things to different people. For example, I believe that competition is essential for capitalism as it allows the public to have a say in what corporations can do. The basics of economy is that competition leads to things such as price reduction and quality increase, as companies want to attract more customers. This means that everyone has some say as they can decide with their wallets. If a company is providing horrible service, terrible products, and so on, they will shut down because they don’t have customers. This is possible because when people have an alternative, they will choose what they believe as better, leading to companies improving their products. But with ISPs, they are basically a monopoly. Without something to regulate them, they can slow Internet access, charge higher rates, censor content they disagree with, and so on. But since they are the only providers of fast Internet, we will be forced to accept it. Basically, removal of net neutrality gives large companies the power to control what we watch.

Support from the President

The Federal Communications Commission is responsible for maintaining net neutrality. The current chairman of the FCC is Ajit Pai, who was appointed to the FCC in 2012 and named chairman by Donald Trump. [7]He previously worked for Verizon and always supported the repeal of net neutrality. The situation is that an individual who is anti-regulation and worked for one of the companies that got hurt by net neutrality, Verizon, was named chairman by the President of the United States. This isn’t just a case of strong lawyers or systems anymore, he literally has the support of the president in this endeavor. 

The five main members of the FCC voted, and the majority ruled to repeal net neutrality. The problem is that the FCC is the sole decision maker that decides if issues like net neutrality should be repealed or not. This means that once the FCC made a decision, there are very few things that anyone can do about it.

It’s going to be fine, trust us

The first thing ISPs claim is that net neutrality was not needed in the first place. They fear that having to treat everyone equally will lead to a decline in innovation, management of traffic, and investment. Those who oppose net neutrality claim that there is enough competition to prevent misuse.[8]But as stated in Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, the regulations without net neutrality are too lenient and based on rules that can change frequently.[9]Skeptics are not convinced by Pai’s suggestion that ISPs voluntarily agree to not discriminate by putting this promise in their terms of service.

Advocates for net neutrality also have many claims. They worry that without net neutrality, telecommunication companies will have too much control, leading to problems with free speech and consumer protection. [10]For example, if the ISPs can control what content and services are available, they can effectively block certain content from people. So, if someone makes a video that criticizes Verizon and their actions, Verizon can slow down the loading of the video. This censorship would go against the rights of free speech by interfering with peoples’ ability to convey their message. As for innovation, a free Internet means that anyone can outshine large corporations by creating a better product without needing permission from operators.[11]The main example of this is how Facebook overtook Myspace. Small start-up sites are able to compete with large corporations since it is a level playing field, and potentially replace them. [12]But if small sites cannot get off the ground, they won’t be able to accomplish anything. Without net neutrality, only the large corporations can compete as the smaller businesses cannot afford to get into the fast lane. While those who oppose net neutrality will say that they have enough competition, advocates will argue that there could never be enough ISP competition since there are only a few service providers that exist.[13]

There is an argument that even with net neutrality, people are being censored.[14]The content providers that put out information on the Internet can decide what they put online, meaning they don’t post information that they don’t agree with. Those who oppose net neutrality will also claim that repealing it will be beneficial economically.[15]Although net neutrality is important, it is not perfect. 

New ways to use the internet

There are many new young activists these days, and many of them use the Internet to manage their movements. By operating online, they are able to tackle issues by finding information and creating a community by communicating with each other.[16]These social movement organizations see the Internet as an important part of their lives, as it empowers them and helps them reach their goal. 

As discussed before, the repeal of net neutrality can lead to censoring of information. If freedom of speech is impeded, it can lead to many social issues such as racism and inequality being untreated and ignored. Specifically, marginalized groups and organizations such as Black Lives Matter will not be able to speak up.[17]

Conclusion

Net neutrality is not an easy topic. There are compelling arguments made by both sides, many of which make great points such as content creators censoring by not talking about certain topics. But there is evidence of ISPs using their power and control in ways that we would not deem acceptable. Therefore, net neutrality being repealed can have a negative effect on the Internet as a whole.

Even now, the repeal of net neutrality is a big discussion in the United States. The only real solution available is to contact the FCC and demand the return of net neutrality. Unfortunately, the FCC is the only real authority figure of this topic in the U.S., so there is not much the American public can do. And once the U.S. is affected by the repeal of net neutrality, there can be unforeseen consequences occurring in other countries as well. This problem is important especially to Canada, as we are influenced heavily by what the U.S. does. Net neutrality is an important topic, but something that a lot of people do not know about. The best option for us is to make sure we know what net neutrality is and what it can do, and decide for ourselves if we want to keep it or change it.

References

Becker, Amy B. 2017. “Satire as a Source for Learning? The Differential Impact of News versus Satire Exposure on Net Neutrality Knowledge Gain.” Information, Communication & Society21(4):612-625.

Graber, Christoph. 2016. “Bottom-up Constitutionalism: The Case of Net Neutrality.” Transnational Legal Theory7(4):524-552.

Konieczny, Piotr. 2014. “Signs of a Generational Change in Social Movements – Activists’ Use of Modern Information and Communication Technologies.” Polish Sociological Review187:261-290.

Powell, Alison, and Alissa Cooper. 2011. “Net Neutrality Discourses: Comparing Advocacy and Regulatory Arguments in the United States and the United Kingdom.” The Information Society27(5):311-325.

Romano, Aja. 2017. “Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next.” Vox. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2018 (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16774148/net-neutrality-repeal-explained).

YouTube. 2017. “Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO).” Retrieved Feb. 6, 2018 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak&t=318s).