This week, the United States finds itself on the brink of a decision that will be the beginning of the end of the open and free internet.
We expect the party-line vote by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to on December 14th to eliminate net neutrality protections, and in doing so produce jaw-dropping negative ramifications for freedom of expression and information in the US, and the rest of the world.
Net neutrality is a core principle of the internet. It states that all internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data equally, without blocking, throttling, or speeding up delivery of content for preferred providers. Net neutrality is based on the idea that the speed, cost and reliability of your internet should not be affected by whether or not your ISP likes what you are downloading or viewing. It keeps ISPs honest, restricting their ability to play favorites, whether it is with Netflix or a repressive government that seeks to stifle dissenting views online. And it keeps the ISPs from breaking up internet service into packages like cable companies do to squeeze ever more money from customers.
The FCC is voting on a proposal to change the classification of broadband internet from a Title II Common Carrier to a Title I Information Service. This might at first appear innocuous but this legalistic switch in classification will have huge implications for everyone.
Title I and Title II are sections of the Communications Act of 1934, which allows the FCC to regulate wire and radio communication services. Title II service providers are more rigorously regulated and held to standards similar to your telephone, gas and electric providers.
In 2015, the FCC passed the Open Internet Order (also known as the Title II Order), which classified ISPs as common carriers and expressly banned activities like throttling, blocking and paid prioritization. In other words the Order categorized internet access as a utility, providing a public good.
However classification as Title I requires only "light-touch regulation," which not only lifts the ban imposed by the 2015 Order but also requires less reporting from companies operating in the sector; they will be encouraged to report if they engage in anti-competitive practices, but there are no real ramifications for doing so.
Reclassification of the internet to Title 1 is effectively an internet-breaking proposal. Here is why:
1. Net Neutrality is a pillar of an open and free internet that enables freedom of expression. It allows for open exchanges of ideas and the development of new media outlets and information sharing services. The internet plays a vital role in political and social movement organizing, made possible by treating all data that flows through the internet in an equal fashion. Without net neutrality, all this is jeopardized. For example, in 2005 in Canada, a telecom company blocked over 700 websites in a bid to restrict access to one pro-union website that was promoting a strike against the company.
2. Reclassification would usher in an era of the pay-to-play internet. By allowing for blocking, throttling and charging for preferential access, it moves us towards an Internet that works more like cable television, where a small group can determine who and what we get to watch. A pay-to-play Internet means that the inherent disruption potential of start-ups, smaller sites and apps will be curtailed as these entities will be forced to negotiate with multiple ISPs to avoid their content being buried, degraded, or even blocked. Many of the biggest media companies may be able to pay for prioritization, and appreciate the built-in structural monopoly this could give them. But this will come at the cost of losing independent journalists and diverse voices who have thrived on the open and free Web. People depend on these alternative sources of information.
3. Reclassification will further enhance the digital divide. Cable companies (who are the largest ISPs) excel at making you pay for things you don’t want by bundling them with things that you do. Without net neutrality, there will be nothing preventing these companies from forcing you to pay to access services you now get for free. US customers already pay much more for poorer broadband internet access than many other developed countries, in part because a majority of Americans have only one choice for high-speed broadband where they live. These costs are already too high for those in lower income brackets: increasing the costs by giving customers the “option” of paying to access services will result in fewer people experiencing the full internet as we know it today.
These are not hypothetical scenarios. Portugal does not have net neutrality regulations, and ISPs in the have responded by breaking up their internet access into plans that mimic what you might see for cable television in the U.S. :
Cable companies will have more power over our digital lives
In sharp contrast to the current vote before the FCC, the United States was one of a core group that pushed for a landmark resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council that protected the principles of net neutrality. The resolution stated: “The UN recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms,” adding that any human rights practiced ‘offline’ must be guaranteed ‘online’ as well.
We now see the US adopting a position at the vanguard of those who wish to erode these very principles. The present FCC (led by former ISP Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai) is seeking a vote that undoes the previous FCC rule that protected net neutrality, and will give cable companies (near-monopolies in themselves) even more power over our digital lives.
If there is one thing we all agree on in this time of heightened tensions in America, it is that cable companies continue to fail at both customer service and employee satisfaction. One recent report cited Comcast, one of the largest ISPs in the US, as “the most hated company in America”. With the vote going in favour of the FCC proposal, this sense of frustration will only increase when Americans learn that the future of access to the internet has been handed over to cable and phone companies to exploit as they see fit.
We cannot and must not give up on freedom of expression online. While it is clear that the battle at the FCC is over for now, we must now move towards challenges to the ruling through the law. Congress must act to pass legislation that will restore net neutrality and protect an open, free and interoperable internet for the future.
Take a moment to send them a message.