Net Neutrality: Is Fast and Unlimited Wi-Fi Connection a Human Necessity?

Net Neutrality: Is Fast and Unlimited Wi-Fi Connection a Human Necessity? Allison Brown HP 3152: Mass Media and Collective Consciousness Professor Molina Spring 2021 The term “network neutrality” was introduced in 2003 and discusses whether an internet service provider should be required to treat all data from all content providers in the same way, and generally argues that net neutrality is good for the internet. For example, if a net neutrality requirement does not exist, internet service providers might in some cases “throttle” certain content, slowing down delivery of that content, even blocking it, so that it would not cause congestion and hinder other kinds of service. Internet service providers also might sign contracts to provide preferential treatment to the services of some content providers, giving their data a “fast lane” to users, so that other traffic would receive a “slow lane” during moments of congestion and arrive later (Dean, 2019). The last decade has seen a strident public debate about net neutrality. Every developed country has had a different regulatory experience with this topic. For example, Russia, “... despite a tightening of its already heavy online censorship, passed net neutrality laws in 2016. The recent legislation focuses on nondiscriminatory access to content—that is, the content not censored by the government, which is itself a sizable list. Russia’s regulation demonstrates more than most situations that net neutrality isn’t the whole issue” (Koziol, 2017). A neutral approach to data doesn’t mean any data is permissible, and a government can still choose to block access to large swaths of Internet sites if it has the ability to do so. On the different end of the legislative spectrum, Australia has no laws pertaining to net neutrality and “... it’s unlikely to change any time soon. Internet service in the country is regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Across the country, ISPs regularly offer zerorated content through partnerships with content providers. The system works because 1 of the large number of ISPs (63 according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics), strong consumer protection laws to prevent ISPs from throttling or blocking competitors’ content, and rules mandating that ISPs have to be transparent in their policies (Koziol, 2017). In the United States, the Government’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spent years, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, trying to enforce net neutrality protections. After a series of legal defeats at the hands of broadband providers, the FCC passed a sweeping net neutrality order in 2015. However, “... in December 2017, the now Republican-controlled FCC voted to jettison that order, freeing broadband providers to block or throttle content as they see fit unless Congress or the courts block the agency's decision” (Finley, 2020). In place of those restrictions, the new requirements from 2015 only require that internet service providers disclose information about their network-management practices and not actively work to preserve net neutrality. It will now be up to the Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers from alleged net neutrality violations. But the FTC is only an enforcement agency therefore it cannot create new regulations. That means that unless a net neutrality violation is also illegal under existing laws in the United States, there isn’t much the FCC can do to prevent or change it. In recent years especially, the FCC has been involved in scandal regarding falsified net neutrality comments, “... an investigation showed that broadband industry players spent $4.2 million to generate and submit more than 8.5 million fake comments to the FCC ‘to create the appearance of widespread grassroots opposition to existing net neutrality rules’ … investigation found that nearly 18 million of the more than 22 million public comments that the FCC received both for and against net neutrality 2 were fake (Shepardson, 2021). Under the Biden Administration, although it is early to tell how net neutrality will fare but many installed thus far in his administration are proponents and advocates for the development of further reaching net neutrality legislation and regulations in the United States. In 2012, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations determined that a connection to the internet is a human right (21st Regular Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, 2012). Among other things, the resolution encourages nations without widespread internet coverage to improve access for all citizens. The resolution also condemns any attempt to impede free speech online. The resolution was updated and unanimously adopted again in 2014 and then again in 2016, demonstrating that all members of the Council recognize the importance of free access to information and the right to freedom of expression online. Though the resolution doesn’t specifically address net neutrality, it does condemn the practice of disrupting or preventing internet access. Net neutrality is an important aspect of online communications and should also be considered a human right. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear the divide that exists between global regions with net neutrality and acceptable infrastructure and the regions that do not. Rather than rendering net neutrality obsolete, the COVID-19 pandemic has reminded lawmakers and US citizens alike why it’s such an important principle. More people than ever rely on the internet, and they should be free to choose the video conferencing tools, education sites, or entertainment they want, rather than let broadband providers decide for them or even sell them out at the highest prices. The crisis shows that even in dire circumstances, internet companies can provide a neutral 3 network. Wired Magazine poses the following line of questioning regarding internet use during COVID-19 relating to net neutrality: “But who should decide which internet services deserve special treatment? Maybe Zoom and other video conferencing apps should get priority, since they’re used for remote work, telehealth, and education. But people also use them for socializing and games. Or maybe providers should throttle streaming video services like Netflix and YouTube. But those services can be used in education too, not to mention keeping up with current events” (Finley, 2021). 4