Net Neutrality: Citizens Rights vs Corporate Rights
- Willow Harper
- Apr 2, 2019
- 6 min read
Not much wide media attention has been paid to the concept of and debate over net neutrality, even in recent years after both President Obama’s favoring of net neutrality in 2015 and the FCC’s 2017 push to remove the 2015 regulations (Pai). Because of this lack of media attention, the debate over net neutrality is not common knowledge. Net neutrality is the idea that all content accessed over the web should be treated the same, meaning internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn’t be able to slow down specific content, restrict access to content, or analysis or change data sent over the web (O'Sullivan, ACLU). The 2015 net neutrality protections should be kept in place, because their repeal would lead to the infringement of individual freedoms and degradation of the democratic process.
Net neutrality, also referred to as the “open” internet, is the way in which online content has always been accessed. Internet access is treated like a utility; You pay a base price and get equal access to everything the internet has to offer (O'Sullivan). Without net neutrality legislation, ISPs would be able to treat the the internet like television, meaning you would have to pay more for access to certain websites or groups of websites, like you would for access to certain TV channels. Net neutrality also prevents internet service providers from analysing and manipulating the data sent or received over the internet, essentially ensuring that ISPs function solely as the transferer of the data (ACLU).
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed net neutrality legislation in 2017 for the main reason of allowing more competition between ISPs, trying to create a market similar to TV providers where access to certain content is used as a selling point (Pai). Title II net neutrality protections were also repealed due to the FCC’s belief that basic transparency of internet service providers’ business practices would be enough to deter said companies from censoring content that would impede upon personal freedoms (Pai). Due to the potential for internet service providers to block or slow down content they do not agree with politically and the ability to manipulate or analyse consumer data without net neutrality protections, it makes the debate over net neutrality a civil liberties and rights issue.
One one side of the issue is the majority of American citizens who support net neutrality, as is evident from the large number of state governments implementing their own net neutrality protections and the overwhelming amount of pushback the FCC saw during the write up of the 2017 repeal (Kang, Brodkin). It is clear that the FCC doesn’t care about the majority opinion of the people they are supposed to represent, as the aforementioned pushback to the “Restoring Internet Freedom” initiative was ignored and the publication FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s video mocking said majority opinion in favor of net neutrality (Brodkin, Daily Caller). American citizens have everything to lose with the repeal of net neutrality protections. Although a small percentage of individuals believe that public transparency of business practices will be enough to deter the harmful actions ISPs can legally commit without net neutrality, the actions of a variety of internet service providers pre-2015 protections say otherwise (Karr). The repeal of net neutrality will greatly hurt low and mid income citizens, widening the digital divide (Brand). Access to the internet is becoming more and more of a necessity when it comes to gaining an education and looking for a job (Sherman). Allowing ISPs to charge even more for access to these vital sources of information will exclude low and mid income families from the process of gaining an education and job hunting. “One in four low-income Americans already lack internet access,” and allowing internet service providers to charge more for access to content that is necessary for life would greatly hurt the working and middle class (Brand).
Internet service providers and corporations with involvement in telecommunications are on the other side of the net neutrality debate, supporting the FCC’s 2017 repeal of net neutrality protections. From the repeal, these ISPs and corporations will gain higher profits for charging consumers higher amounts for access to content and higher internet data transfer speeds (FCC). It will also give ISPs the advantage of slowing and/or blocking content provided or supported by rival companies or anything that the company doesn’t agree with from a business or political standpoint. This means that they could block sites that have anything negative to say about them, like the telecommunications Canadian company Telus did in 2005 when it blocked a server that hosted a website which supported a strike against against the telecommunications giant (Karr).
The repeal of the 2015 Title II net neutrality protections was close to fully implemented on April 23rd, 2018, expect for certain “amendatory instructions” that are delayed and are subject to further approval (FCC). However, there is currently a lawsuit against FCC’s repeal of the 2015 protections, issued by Mozilla and supported by 22 state attorney generals. Mozilla and the state attorney generals’ cite a lack of “sound legal reasoning” (Kang).
A collection of states have created their own net neutrality protections, and due to arguments as to whether states have the right to regulate internet usage within their borders, state attorney generals such as California’s are waiting for a resolvement of the challenge to the FCC’s 2017 repeal (Kang). It is likely consumers won’t experience a price increase for content or the throttling of content until this lawsuit is resolved.
As touched upon before, the repeal of net neutrality protections will infringe upon individual liberties and widen the digital divide (ACLU, Sherman, Brand). Content accessed by American citizens could be censored by internet service providers and the public would not be able to equally access vital information about political issues and politicians equally over different ISPs, limiting freedom of speech, assembly (online or otherwise as the web can be used to organize meetings and demonstrations, and freedom of the press. The internet has become crucial to the democratic process, allowing citizens all over the nation to debate and discuss the issues freely. Allowing internet service providers and corporations with stakes in telecommunications to control the democratic process is directly diminishing the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights and against the people, which gives the government its power in the first place.
The end of net neutrality legislation will also widen the digital divide, which is defined by Stanford as:
“...the growing gap between the underprivileged members of society, especially the poor, rural, elderly, and handicapped portion of the population who do not have access to computers or the internet; and the wealthy, middle-class, and young Americans living in urban and suburban areas who have access.”
The underprivileged already have great difficulty in accessing the internet, which has become the basis for education and the job market (Sherman). Allowing ISPs to charge even more for access to these vital resources will only create further disparity in income and education between the low and mid-income individuals and the wealthy. These reasons above give more than enough justification to keep net neutrality protections in place.
Even though not much wide media attention has been paid to the debate over net neutrality, the idea that all content accessed over the web should be given equal treatment, it is still a hugely important issue facing Americans today. The 2015 Title II net neutrality legislation should be kept in place in order to protect civil liberties and prevent the degradation of the democratic process.
Works Cited
ACLU. "What Is Net Neutrality?" ACLU https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/internet-speech/what-net-neutrality . Accessed March 25th 2019.
Brand, David. "The End of Net Neutrality Could Hurt the Poor Most of All." Finance & Innovation. Global Citizen https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/the-end-of-net-neutrality-could-hurt-the-poor-most/ . Accessed March 29th 2019.
Brodkin, Jon. "Fcc Explains Why Public Support for Net Neutrality Won't Stop Repeal." Ars Technica https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/why-the-fcc-ignored-public-opinion-in-its-push-to-kill-net-neutrality/ . Accessed March 29th 2019.
Daily Caller. "7 Things You Can Still Do on the Internet after Net Neutrality: Psa from Chairman of the Fcc." Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg, December 13th 2017, p. 1:43.
Federal Communications Commission. "Restoring Internet Freedom Final Rule." vol. 83, 2018, pp. 7852-7922, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-02-22/pdf/2018-03464.pdf, Accessed March 29th, 2019.
Kang, Cecilia. "Net Neutrality Repeal at Stake as Key Court Case Starts." The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-case.html. Accessed March 29th 2019.
Karr, Timothy. "Net Neutrality Violations: A Brief History." Free Press https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history Accessed April 2nd 2019.
O'Sullivan, Fergus. "What Is Net Neutrality and Why Is It Important?" Cloudwards https://www.cloudwards.net/net-neutrality/. Accessed March 25th 2019.
Pai, Ajit et al. "Restoring Internet Freedom: Fcc Initiative." Federal Communications Commission https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-restoring-internet-freedom-order. Accessed March 25th 2019.
Sherman, Erik. "This Is How Net Neutrality's End Will Hurt Low and Moderate Income People." Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/12/15/this-is-how-net-neutralitys-end-will-hurt-low-and-moderate-income-people/#53d04f30402b Accessed March 29th 2019.
Stanford. "Digital Divide." Stanford, https://cs-stanford-edu.ucark.idm.oclc.org/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/digital-divide/start.html. Accessed April 2nd 2019.
Comments