Here We Go Again - Net Neutrality

News from the New York Times last week:

The Federal Communications Commission released a plan on Tuesday to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to the internet, clearing the way for internet service companies to charge users more to see certain content and to curb access to some websites.

The proposal, made by the F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, is a sweeping repeal of rules put in place by the Obama administration. The rules prohibit high-speed internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites. They also prevent the companies from charging customers extra fees for high-quality streaming and other services.

Almost four years ago net neutrality was in danger - my post on the topic, from January 2014, is here, at Netting the Net.

Unsurprisingly, in this Age of Trump, the issue has bubbled up from the depths once again. We are contemplating a "netted" internet which will work to the benefit of nobody, apart from the corporations in charge.

A vote on the repeal of current rules is scheduled for December 14th, when the result is expected to be in favour of repeal, resulting in loss of net neutrality.

For any passing reader still not quite clear about what kind of things loss of net neutrality would mean to most of us, here's a handy graphic reminder from thenib.com

A World Without Net Neutrality

Netting the Net

Next big concern coming up for Mr or Ms Average internet user in the USA (most of us these days) will be the earnest hope that net neutrality doesn't disappear in accordance with the ruling this week of a federal appeals court. The court threw out the FCC's Net Neutrality Rules. There's already lots of information and explanation available on the importance of this to the average consumer, a good article by Maggie Reardon at CNET on the topic is HERE.

The appeals court ruling isn't about internet access as such, but about the ability of internet service providers to take control of access to content, and it's all about the money, as usual, of course. Until now government (FCC - Federal Communications Commission) regulation ensured that anyone who paid a service provider for internet connection could access every website on the net, and every service run via the internet, such as Skype. This week's court ruling has cancelled this regulation.

Internet service providers are now free to limit, or charge extra for, access to certain websites and services. This will work in much the same way that Cable TV access works. Internet service providers will, eventually no doubt, begin to offer "bundles" of various levels of access, demanding more and more payment for wider access to sites outside a consumer's "bundle". Access to Amazon, Netflix, YouTube, Skype for instance could become akin to accessing HBO, Showtime etc. on TV.

Internet service providers are now in control. Business owners and content providers as well as viewers of net content could also find themselves having to pay internet service providers. Comcast, Verizon etc. can now demand payment by businesses or other content providers to obtain access to their customers. Until now there has been 100% access by all to all - but no more. It's beginning to sound like some kind of mob protection racket! Anyway, it's certain we shall all be paying more for less before long.

Is there any hope of getting the recent court decision overturned? The issue could end up in the Supreme Court, unless the FCC is able to construct a new case based on different existing laws or arguments.

From what I've read, if the FCC were able to declare internet service providers to be common carriers, that might provide a solution. Common carriage applies to the means of supply of utilities such as electricity, water, gas, telephone lines. In those cases the pipes, cables, lines or whatever are a common means of supply, and while owned by private companies or corporations, those companies or corporations cannot limit or slow down supply once the consumer has paid the required fee for access. However, it appears that the Supreme Court has, in 2005, put up a likely barrier to that possibility in its Brand X decision that broadband services should not be classified as telecommunications services, which means that broadband providers' infrastructure is not considered a public right of way like phone lines or water pipes, and should not be regulated as such. Perhaps shrewd lawyers will be able to find a loophole. Let us hope so!

Apart from the commercial aspect of these eventualities, there's a political aspect too. It could become harder, more expensive, or even impossible to access certain political blogs and websites. I'll leave the rest of that pre-dystopic vision to a reader's imagination.

Copyrighted material on these pages is included as "fair use", for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis only, and will be removed at the request of copyright owner.