Post #8 (EOTO): Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all Internet traffic equally. In other words, ISPs should not deliberately speed up or slow down access to certain websites or services. While the term "net neutrality" was not coined until 2002, the basic principle of network neutrality dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, when the Federal Communications Commission placed regulations on phone companies to prevent them from undermining their competition in the emerging computer networking market. As the Internet developed, the government started debating how they could protect consumers while also promoting market innovation. As a result, the FCC's policies regarding network neutrality have shifted depending on the politics of presidential administrations. In 2005, under President Bush, the FCC enacted a policy that would prohibit ISPs from blocking certain types of content or preventing consumers from connecting the devices they want to the Internet; this policy was overturned in 2008 when a federal court determined that the FCC did not have the authority to enforce its 2005 policy. Another attempt at net neutrality was made in 2010 by the Obama Administration. In May 2010, the FCC passed regulations that would prevent ISPs from blocking websites or placing limits on consumers. Once again, the regulations were struck down by a federal appeals court in 2014. In subsequent years, the FCC tried to establish strong net neutrality regulations, but they were rolled back by President Trump in 2018.

Network neutrality is a relatively popular policy, with support from roughly 80% of Americans. Among the strongest arguments in favor of strong net neutrality protections is the argument that spurs online innovation by keeping the barriers for entry low. Supporters argue that, without net neutrality protections, existing ISPs would sabotage services that could pose a competitive threat. For example, an ISP that owns a streaming service might intentionally slow down or degrade the streaming capacity of competing services. Moreover, without net neutrality, supporters worry that ISPs will begin charging fees to customers to maintain the same level of service. As the image shows, ISPs could charge premiums to other corporations and consumers to benefit from optimal service. 

Despite the apparent benefits of net neutrality, it does have its critics. One common argument against net neutrality is that it would discourage existing networks from innovating their services. For instance, strict net neutrality rules would prevent ISPs from experimenting with services that would allow latency-prone websites or applications, like online games, to pay a premium for their services to be given priority. Such services could provide better experiences for the consumer, but it is also possible that the additional costs associated with these premiums would be placed onto the consumer. Another common counterargument against net neutrality is that it is simply too difficult to craft clear and effective laws that remain relevant in a world of ever-changing technology. While it is true that technology is continuously evolving, it is also important to recognize that many current Internet regulations stem from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Therefore, I think that, regardless of complexity, we need to start establishing rules for the technology of today. After all, not addressing an issue just because it feels too complex is not a real solution to the base problem. 

In the years since net neutrality was repealed, we have already seen some of the issues that can arise when ISPs have the ability to change their pricing without actually changing their service. Most notably, shortly after protections were lifted, Verizon slowed Internet access for the Santa Clara Fire Department as they were battling what was, at the time, the largest wildfire in California's history. The issue was only resolved once the department agreed to switch to a new, more expensive subscription plan. Though Verizon claims the issue was a customer service issue rather than a net neutrality issue, Santa Clara County officials argue that this case exemplifies that ISPs are most likely to work towards their own economic interests, even at the cost of public safety. This point was furthered when several large mobile carriers were found to have sold precise geolocation data of customers to data brokers. In this case, part of the privacy rules that the FCC would have adopted under a new net neutrality policy would require consumers to opt-in to the collection of this sensitive data, rather than making it the default. Clearly, the repeal of net neutrality has broad implications for society at large. 

Ultimately, any system that would permit companies to up-charge for equal access to Internet services is going to create inequality. Obviously, people of a lower economic class and those with less disposable income will not be able to access the Internet in the same way that people who are capable of paying premiums could, which has further implications when it comes to having equal access to online information. Initially, we are unlikely to see a major difference in costs because companies will likely start by implementing small fees at different increments. However, over time and across services, these costs will build. Thus, I believe that preserving network neutrality is a crucial step that must be taken to protect consumers online from being exploited by large ISPs.