Net Neutrality
I am writing to inform you of the principle of net neutrality, the history of the development of this concept, and its significance in the political and social spheres. It is commonly referred to as the idea that companies providing Internet access cannot, at their discretion, give preference to one or more different resources. In other words, all services and sites should be regarded by providers on equal terms and equally accessible to all users. Columbia University professor Tim Wu first proposed the concept of net neutrality. In a paper published by Wu in 2003, the scientist proposed introducing a general rule for all Internet companies and services (Becker et al., 2017). It would prohibit providers from discriminating against some market participants in favor of others. Julius Genachowski officially proposed the introduction of the net neutrality principle in the United States. He at that time held the post of head of the Federal Communications Agency; this happened in 2009.
In 2010, the principle of net neutrality was successfully approved, and since then, the FCC has been trying to monitor its compliance as closely as possible; in practice, this means something like the following (Becker et al., 2017). When connecting to the network, the user can choose between two options. He either uses a stationary connection via a dedicated line using a cable and a wireless connection or has an access via mobile devices (smartphones and tablet computers). However, in both cases, the provider ensuring communication services spends billions of dollars on the link – laying a cable, building towers transmitting the signal, and so on. The renovation, expansion, and modernization of all this infrastructure cost millions of dollars every year.
The provider cannot prescribe a separate tariff for using the Netflix online cinema. He also can not take extra money for a higher speed of downloading videos on YouTube, or artificially cut the rate on torrents. Large companies like Google or Dropbox cannot be charged because they account for more traffic than the blog of an unknown schoolboy from San Francisco. With the development of the Internet, an increasing share of the traffic transmitted over the networks began to fall on several large sites and services. By 2013, services such as Google-owned YouTube video hosting or Netflix Internet cinema had already absorbed about 45 percent of all American traffic. By comparison, Facebook accounted for about 1.3 percent at the same time, and iTunes generated about three more.
At the same time, net neutrality ensured that YouTube, with its 27 percent, should have been regarded by providers in the same way as Facebook with its 1.3 percent (Becker et al., 2017). It does not matter how much the video quality on Netflix has increased in a year, or how much the load on the network has grown. It is still forbidden to charge an additional fee for watching clips and TV shows of good quality. For this reason, the largest US providers (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Sprint, and others) have been trying to challenge the principle of net neutrality hardly since its adoption.
Legal Standpoint
There is an issue of net neutrality that stands from a Federal US Supreme Court standpoint because, legally, the principle of net neutrality may not apply to Internet service providers. The culprit, oddly enough, is the FCC itself, which in 2002 classified Internet service providers as “information services” and not telecom operators (Becker et al., 2017). Thus, according to the law, AT&T, Verizon, and all their competitors may disobey the decisions of the FCC and not observe neutrality when working with traffic. Based on this, after lengthy legal disputes and numerous appeals, the US court denied the Federal Agency the right to require providers to comply with net neutrality in January. It would seem that it is possible to end this, but everything is more complicated.
In turn, the FCC decided to use another law — the Telecommunications Act, adopted in 1996. On the one hand, the 706th section of this document does not allow the agency to influence the possible prioritization of traffic by providers (Becker et al., 2017). On the other hand, referring to the area, the FCC can theoretically regulate the activities of providers “to ensure equal access of all US citizens to information on the network”(Becker et al., 2017). Now the FCC is considering a set of new rules regarding net neutrality.
Social Equity Impact of Net Neutrality
Most companies in Silicon Valley favor maintaining existing norms and mandatory compliance with net neutrality. Their main argument is that equal access to the Internet for everyone, and the same attitude of providers to all types of traffic. This will allow the IT sector in the United States to grow faster than ever, moving forward innovation, science, and the entire economy. All Internet services are provided to all users with the same level of quality. Data from different senders to different recipients should be processed and forwarded the same way.
At the same time, of course, the type of data needs to be considered: emails, web pages, files, or video streams. Some of the transmitted data is more sensitive to the speed of delivery and possible delays, while others are less sensitive. The boundary between the permissible considering the nature of the transmitted data and the already unacceptable remains the subject of long discussions. However, data of the same category sent by different users to different recipients are treated the same. Ensuring free access to communications and the Internet is crucial for the formation of the digital economy. As a result of the abolition of net neutrality, competition will become unfair. It will open the possibility for behind-the-scenes agreements between the most prominent players in the telecommunications market.
Net neutrality has already outgrown the technological issue, and it has become a field for large-scale public discussion. This phenomenon directly affects the political agenda and the overall assessment of decisions taken during the presidency of Donald Trump. The previous US president, Democrat Barack Obama, welcomed neutrality and left his successor and the new Congress a rather tricky legacy. Appointed by Donald Trump, the new head of the department, Ajit Pai, opposed net neutrality as an FCC commissioner before taking office. He previously said that due to the detachment of providers, they receive less profit and cannot invest in the development of the Internet.
On May 18, the commission voted to repeal the law; members of Washington have two opposing opinions. Democrats supported the idea of maintaining net neutrality, while Republicans defended the free market and competition and declared the rules of the Obama’s Commission excessive. The essence of the main argument of Republicans and President Trump is that unregulated business stimulates innovation and helps the economy. The fact is that protecting the interests of users and Internet entrepreneurs restricts the freedom of entrepreneurship among operators. The state obliges them not to improve services but to ensure that everyone receives them for the same fee. Nevertheless, Democrats in the United States are determined to find a way to appeal this decision or resume discussion.
Reference
Becker, A. B., & Bode, L. (2017). Satire as a source for learning? The differential impact of news versus satire exposure on net neutrality knowledge gain. Information, Communication & Society, 58(3), 1-14.