The Politics of Technology: Net Neutrality
A federal agency chairman wielding a lightsaber and doing the Harlem Shake on YouTube. A man threatening the same chairman with murder and getting 18 months in prison. A super-popular late night show host urging viewers to visit GoFCCYourself.com and getting millions to write comments. It’s hard to imagine that the core issue causing all of this could have something to do with technology!
Yet, that’s exactly what happened during the repeal of Net Neutrality in late 2017. The issue fully captured public imagination, and the contributing factor may well have been the passionate response along party lines. Two years later, Net Neutrality is again in the news as Covid-19 causes a dramatic surge in internet usage. And even this renewed interest has more to do with political discourse than technological debate. The dispute is a reminder of how politics — rather than innovation or resource availability — can often have a bigger impact in shaping the course of technology.
It’s better to refresh the memory before delving deeper. The term ‘Network Neutrality’ was actually coined by Columbia University’s very own Law School professor Tim Wu in his 2003 paper about online discrimination. It is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISP) like Verizon or AT&T should treat all content flowing through their systems equally. Put more simply, Net Neutrality ensures that ISPs would not be able to single out a specific service/website, then slow it down or block it. Also, if variable pricing is implemented in absence of Net Neutrality, then smaller companies and startups may well be forced to provide their services through slower internet options.
While the case for Net Neutrality sounds intuitively reasonable, strong contradictory opinions also exist. Opponents argue that ISPs should be able to charge higher for services like online streaming which guzzle up most of the data, and this is the natural process of pricing for most industries. There is also the fear that if neutrality rules stay in place, ISPs would be discouraged to invest in broadband network due to the invasive regulatory environment, and innovation would be stifled.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had adopted some form of Net Neutrality principles starting from mid 2000s (e.g. the 2005 Fair Internet Policy, 2010 Open Internet Order). However, the policies were often not detailed enough, resulting in multiple legal victories in courts for ISPs when FCC tried to enforce these principles. Then a turning point came in 2014, when the then President Barack Obama publicly opined that ISPs should be reclassified so that they can be regulated extensively. FCC performed the reclassification and published more detailed rules in 2015, and these changes were crucially held up by the court the next year.
Although general public opinion indicates broad consensus favoring Net Neutrality, the Democrats and Republicans continued to wage fierce debates respectively for and against Net Neutrality. So it came as little surprise when Republican Ajit Pai became FCC chairman after 2016 elections and announced his intentions to repeal the regulation. What was new though was the vehemence of rhetoric. At one point, he accused opposing views as being “typical of a larger movement in our country today that is fundamentally hostile to free speech”. Both sides escalated the war of words, and public interest also reached a fever pitch. Eventually, FCC members voted 3–2 along party lines in favor of repealing the regulation in December 2017.
The saga isn’t necessarily over though. FCC won a ruling that upheld the repeal in October 2019, however the verdict allowed individual States the right to pass their own Neutrality laws. Unsurprisingly, there is speculation that some Democrat-governed states will reinstate Net Neutrality principles soon.
Now the coronavirus crisis has added new perspectives into the discussion. Netflix and YouTube have reduced their streaming quality in Europe following requests from EU officials in order to prevent the internet from breaking. The US has not faced anything similar yet, and proponents of Net Neutrality repeal are touting this as vindication of the FCC’s decision, which — they say- incentivize ISPs to foster innovation and increase investment.
Such oversimplification and frequent exaggerations are largely results of the partisan divide around this issue, and they hardly take into account all relevant considerations. For example, US internet’s relative consistency during the ongoing crisis may well have been the result of factors other than mere absence of Net Neutrality, while legitimate concerns still remain that ISPs are slowly but surely increasing price of internet. On the other hand, unrealistically ominous pictures were painted, especially in social media, about how the repeal was going to result in extra fees for using the likes of Twitter and Google — none of which was ever likely. To summarize, both parties refuse to recognize the nuances of the situation and the need to accept compromises.
Given the publicity this issue has generated, opposing sides will likely remain entrenched in their own positions and the debate will rage on. This highlights a broad challenge for tech-based service providers. When the regulatory environment becomes so uncertain because of political divisions, it becomes difficult for organizations to make long-term bets and investments — which are particularly important for technology companies. While this is far from ideal, organizations have little choice but to keep navigating through the uncertainties — at least for the foreseeable future!
