In December 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of America voted to repeal net neutrality rules that had been instituted by the previous government. This brought about a heavy backlash from users, with many calling the 3-2 vote in favour of the repeal “the death of the internet.” While they claimed the repeal threatened the concept of open internet and put users at the mercy of ISPs, proponents of the repeal clarified that there was no net neutrality when the internet was created anyway. How true are these positions, and what do they mean for you?

We Are All Equal

Net Neutrality is a principle that affirms that all ISPs should treat all data equally. It prevents ISPs from discriminating against users, content, applications, and websites. Under net neutrality, your ISP had no right to make connections to Instagram slower than SnapChat. In addition to giving all content the same treatment, ISPs had no right to charge extra fees for different content, users or applications.

Net neutrality ensures and encourages the phenomenon of open internet. Much like an open-source software, open internet ensures all the resources of the internet are available to every user, corporation, or organisation. This allows information to disseminate freely and easily, and also gives companies big or small equal access to the internet.

Unfounded Fears?

Some ISPs have been accused of actively slowing internet access to certain websites in the past. Comcast was found to be slowing down internet access to BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer file sharing applications until the FCC forced them to stop. In 2004, Madison River was fined $15,000 for restricting access to Vonage, a rival company. Verizon and AT&T were both accused of similar actions.

Despite these findings, opponents of net neutrality have called these laws as further evidence of excessive government interventions that inhibit competition. Under net neutrality, small ISPs that normally target mobile users would have to incur the same costs as larger corporations if they have to offer the same bandwidth to each user. This also means that there is going to be a cut-back on capital expenditure among ISPs if they are not allowed to prioritize broadband and provide different services to different customers. If they are prevented from charging for higher-end internet access, for example, there would be no motivation to invest in and develop further fiber-optic networks.

Proponents of net neutrality are against the very idea that a lack of open internet will limit access by making the internet more expensive for some consumers. The result would mean a fast lane where the rich and powerful will have all the benefits of a free internet while the poor are crammed along slower, restricted lines. Governments could even force ISPs to perpetuate their propaganda by limiting access to rival websites. A lack of net neutrality, in this case, could limit free speech.

Zero-Rating

Zero-rating is the process of providing internet access at no cost through subsidy or by limiting access to specific websites. Sometimes, the cost of accessing the website is borne by a third-party through advertisement. An example of a zero-rating practice is Facebook Zero and Google Zero. These two services give users free access to some features of their apps.

In practice, ISPs and telecom companies provide subsidized internet bundles to be used for the most popular group of apps like Facebook, Google, etc. Accessing other mobile apps or websites draw higher standard charges, however, raising questions of whether zero-rating furthers or inhibits open internet.

Zero-rating is quite popular in developing economies where data charges tend to be high and out of the reach of the average user. By providing cheaper access to the most popular applications, zero-rating might encourage open internet by increasing internet penetration among citizens.

On the downside, this practice creates an imbalance on the playing field. Bigger corporations are able to subsidize users to access their content at the expense of smaller businesses. Also, ISPs with in-house content are able to promote their content ahead of independent creators, thereby inhibiting competition.

Are You For or Against?

An open internet is important for the dissemination of information. It encourages innovation and amplifies the voice of the voiceless. A vote for net neutrality ensures that no ISP discriminates against this opportunity.

On the other hand, the current developments in internet technology, including the impending 5G, is based on the ability of businesses to practice price discrimination. Denying them the right to offer different services to different clients might be a disincentive for further investment, research and development. And so the line is drawn between personal internet access and business innovation. What’s your vote?