Save the Internet

Net Neutrality protects online consumers and web service providers from anti-competitive practices of ISPs

Net Neutrality is not something that has been part of the Internet since it’s inception. In 2014 the public was introduced to the first major issue bringing up the idea of Net Neutrality. Verizon and Comcast began heavily throttling Netflix users’ traffic which caused massive backlash against the ISP giants.

FCC’s current website states:

“Two years ago, the FCC abruptly changed course. On a party-line vote, the FCC applied 1930s-era utility-style regulation (“Title II”) to the Internet. That decision appears to have put at risk online investment and innovation, threatening the very open Internet it purported to preserve.”

The problem with this view on Net Neutrality is that it assumes the victims are the Internet Service Providers. Major ISPs, during which time Net Neutrality was law, told their stakeholders that investment in their networks was not being affected by the new rules[²].

Business Insider — https://goo.gl/Y8wK8x

Why did the FCC change course two years ago, changing ISP classification under Title II? It was due to the anti-competitive throttling of online services by major ISPs in 2014 and the (still ongoing) consolidation of media companies into ISP parent companies.

The FCC’s view of Net Neutrality also relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet works. They have met plenty of times with Internet Providers but have not listened to Computer Scientists, small ISPs, online business owners, or those that understand the technical workings of the Internet.

The current FCC has made it clear that they don’t believe Net Neutrality principles are good for ISPs, with no hard evidence. With the current board it’s seemingly inevitable that Net Neutrality rules will soon be ended across party lines. Ajit Pai, FCC Commissioner, has made it obvious that he does not care what the public or small businesses think about his stance on Net Neutrality.

Ajit Pai plans to override Net Neutrality under Title II and let Congress pass legislation that he says will promote the “Open Internet”. The problem is that Congress has received over $100 million in donations from the ISP industry[¹]. Congress is incentivized to create legislation and pass a bill that is heavily influenced (if not written) by the very industry from which it is supposedly defending consumers.

The true victims of throttling, paid prioritization and content blocking are the online consumers and web service providers. ISPs are the gatekeepers to the largest collection of human information in the world. Allowing them to throttle and prioritize traffic drastically affects the online marketplace both for consumers and producers in the internet ecosystem.

“About 54.5 million households had access to at least two wired providers offering 25Mbps speeds, and 6.9 million had access to three such providers. The data goes up to June 2016.” — Ars Technica https://goo.gl/Y8TqRy

The lack of competition for low latency broadband in the US does not provide customers with adequate options and thus allows ISPs to abuse their power as service providers. This low amount of competition allows ISPs to operate as monopolies or duopolies in nearly every state. Without Network Neutrality, ISPs have the complete power to dictate the online marketplace that they provide their customers. This can be horrible news for new web service providers looking to compete with web services owned by the network operators.

Allowing ISPs the power to throttle and prioritize traffic could displace millions of potential and already existing online jobs and businesses.

The future for networking technologies is bright (Fiber, 5G, etc). But the near future for low latency broadband in the US is dark and could have lasting affects on our economy and our democracy. Innovation online is hampered by anti-competitive throttling/paid prioritization and Net Neutrality rules protect the online marketplace from this behavior.

The Internet is an extremely valuable tool for human innovation and we need to protect it with rules preventing blocking, throttling and paid prioritization.