The net neutrality debate is as enduring as ever, particularly impacting your access to a consistent internet experience. Just months after the FCC reinstated net neutrality rules, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismantled the 2015 regulations. The Trump administration supports the repeal, with incoming FCC chair Brendan Carr heralding it as a “country victory.”
Advertisement
Before examining the 6th Circuit Court’s ramifications, it’s vital to align on definitions. As previously noted by the FCC (information is now removed), net neutrality defined broadband internet as akin to public utilities, with ISPs adhering to “just and reasonable” principles similar to utility providers. This includes equal access to all websites, equal hosting opportunities, and reliable, secure connections.
The ruling reverts the U.S. to fragmented protections, creating an inconsistent internet policy patchwork. While at least 35 states have initiated net neutrality legislation, only four have comprehensive laws, risking an increased digital divide. With net neutrality restoration seemingly stalled, let’s explore potential outcomes.
Advertisement
A less open internet: Blocking, and the art of controlling traffic
The absence of net neutrality curtails consumer freedom, enabling ISPs to modify internet traffic. “Blocking” is one tactic where ISPs restrict certain websites or services. Over recent decades, major ISPs like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon have limited access to rival websites and applications and influenced search engine outcomes.
Advertisement
Telus, a prominent Canadian telecom, once blocked labor protestors’ access. Dismantling net neutrality fosters practices eroding public trust, threatening informational transparency. Amid rising political misinformation and AI deepfakes, users must trust their ability to access unmanipulated information. Although isolated blocking cases may seem minor, misuse potential is significant.
The historical context prompts questions about the future. Will ISPs limit users’ access to competition? Or restrict access contrary to business or political interests? Blocking challenges the internet’s identity—an open resource or a provider-dominated commodity.
Advertisement
Surge pricing the web
Repealing net neutrality sanctions throttling akin to surge pricing, where ISPs diminish or cut connections unless users pay more. Despite ISP claims of congestion management, a 2019 Northeastern University study revealed pervasive throttling irrespective of traffic.
Advertisement
In 2014, Comcast rejected Netflix’s free offer to use CDNs to manage traffic, demanding a costly delivery fee. Throttling affects not just download speeds, as ISPs have throttled crucial public safety services too.
In 2018, Verizon throttled the Santa Clara Fire Department’s service to 1/200th of standard speeds amid a wildfire until the department doubled its payments. Such precedents raise concerns about ISPs holding essential resources for ransom during emergencies.
Advertisement
In times of disasters, from California wildfires to Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, even emergency responders falling prey to ISP manipulations paints a grim outlook for internet reliability.
Who’s really paying for the fast lane?
Paid prioritization is another ISP strategy, charging websites for higher-speed access. Although the logic is sound — making resource-heavy sites pay — it creates inequities in a zero-sum bandwidth model.
Advertisement
To speed up one site, another’s speed must decrease, giving wealthy companies a literal fast track over smaller rivals. In this gladiatorial scene, less affluent businesses face an uphill struggle.
Streaming services highlight this, where price hikes come as Netflix, Max, Peacock, and others boost their charges, despite profits. When profits decrease, consumer impacts worsen, much influenced by court rulings affecting platforms like Netflix.
Advertisement
Experts suggest recent rulings could cost Netflix up to $1 billion, influencing future subscription price evaluations amidst $18 billion budgets.
A less private connection in the era of big data
Without net neutrality, ISP customer data management might shift. The ruling reduces ISPs’ obligations regarding data use, stripping the FCC of regulatory power over customer data privacy.
Advertisement
Critics claim net neutrality also risked user privacy by enforcing compliance with federal surveillance acts like CALEA and FISA, potentially allowing excessive government oversight.
The scenario complicates data security, raising concerns over ISPs and regulators balancing proprietary information protection amidst much uncertainty.
Advertisement
A complicated cybersecurity debate
Ending net neutrality weakens cybersecurity regulatorily, lessening FCC capabilities to ensure broadband reliability in threats like outages.
Advertisement
Advocates argue regulations hinder ISP threat responses, while proponents see risks in ISPs limiting users’ security choices amid corporate interests.
ISPs injecting advertisements on websites, jeopardizing user data, illustrates regulatory shortcomings in confronting cyber vulnerabilities.
Advertisement
In a tightening cybersecurity domain, network protection is crucial, yet net neutrality rollback limits regulation.
The fight over foreign broadband
The recent ruling reignites foreign ISPs’ debates, predominantly focused on Chinese-owned operators. Concerns heightened earlier this year by banning TikTok due to data misuse fears, extended by FCC’s earlier net neutrality powers restricting Chinese telecoms.
Advertisement
Broadband providers manage critical data, underscoring national security’s significance in American internet infrastructure.
Though disbanding net neutrality’s consequence on foreign ISPs remains uncertain, foreign ownership poses challenging questions of governmental safeguards absent regulatory leverage.
Advertisement
It’s all about choice (and now there’s less of it)
Consumer choice issues stem from the concentration of the broadband market. A 2020 report indicated 88.3 million Americans rely on a single internet provider.
Advertisement
The absence of net neutrality laws may exacerbate anti-competitive practices limiting choices, retaining local monopolies, and minimizing ISP accountability due to limited switching options.
Conversely, ISPs contest lifting net neutrality will enhance broadband by spurring innovation and investments, though supporting evidence appears questionable against growing telecom innovations during net neutrality’s existence.
Advertisement
Falling through the cracks
The broadband divide leaves millions of Americans offline, disproportionately affecting economic and racial minorties, and rural areas unequipped by necessary infrastructure investment.
Advertisement
Congress approved significant broadband expansion aid; however, without FCC’s oversight ensuring fair distribution, these efforts’ effectiveness remains questionable.
The absence of net neutrality risks repeating inadequate past interventions, overcharging Americans for insufficient improvements.
Advertisement
