Surfing the web may mean some high tides for consumers next year after a federal vote last week that will allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to govern website accessibility nationwide.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Dec. 14 to end net-neutrality standards, regulations established in 2015 that restrict ISPs from favoring certain websites by slowing down or blocking access to others.
The end of net-neutrality principles means that not all websites will be treated equally and that prioritization will be at an ISP’s discretion.
In a phone interview on Tuesday, US Rep. Alan Lowenthal, who represents California’s 47th District, put it in terms of cable television, in which customers can purchase more lucrative packages to access more channels, only, in this case, the public would be paying service providers more money to have more websites and faster speeds.
Currently, Comcast, AT&T, Charter and Verizon dominate the Internet market in the United States, encompassing 76 percent of online access in the country, according to national statistics.
“So, the question is, ‘Are they going to adopt policies that maintain net neutrality as it is now, or are they going to— since they are going to be allowed to do it— engage in a market-based strategy?'” Lowenthal said. “[…] And if you want to have faster access, if you don’t mind having slowed-down access or certain websites can be blocked if the ISP wants to do it, […] let the consumer pick those. It may be slower, but that’s the options that they have. That’s a critical issue that comes up. And I don’t think the American public is going to stand for these changes.”
For nearly two decades, lawmakers and the FCC have attempted to balance the ideas of a free and open Internet while also promoting network-based investments from companies to offer faster online browsing.
Over the years, the conversation had more to do with how the country should classify broadband service and adhering to guidelines that protect Internet freedoms instead of concerns about “fast lanes or slow lanes” of service, according to media outlets. The motivation in 2015 to officially establish net neutrality was to reclassify broadband as a public utility, which would provide the FCC the legal basis to impose regulations protecting Internet access. The counter-argument is that neutrality principles hurt ISPs’ investments to build a network infrastructure and grow and provide faster Internet.
In an emailed statement Thursday, David Cohen, senior executive vice president and chief diversity officer of Comcast, commended FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and his fellow commissioners Michael O’Rielly and Brendan Carr for voting to end net-neutrality principles last week, adding that the decision will return the web to “a regulatory environment that allowed the Internet to thrive for decades by eliminating burdensome Title II regulations and opening the door for increased investment and digital innovation.”
He added, “The action does not mark the ‘end of the Internet as we know it;’ rather it heralds in a new era of light regulation that will benefit consumers.”
In an emailed statement from Charter, the company wrote that it will not exploit the ability to interfere with open Internet access.
“Charter supports an open Internet,” the statement reads, “because we believe delivering superior broadband to our customers is an essential ingredient to growing our business. Without an open Internet, that isn’t possible. We don’t slow down, block or discriminate against lawful content. Simply put, we don’t interfere with the lawful online practices of our customers, and we have no plans to change our practices.”
Attempts were made to contact Verizon and AT&T, but they had not responded by press time.
As of now, the United States is still operating under net neutrality, per the 2015 law, until a formal Congressional review of the FCC’s vote will have the new regulations in place sometime in the late winter and early spring, according to Lowenthal. The decision can be challenged as early as four to five months thereafter, the time span after the law has passed that Congress is in session, he added.
“I’ve spoken out requesting that the FCC not change the net-neutrality rules, but now we’ll have to see, once the new regulations go into effect, how we confront this issue,” Lowenthal said, adding that his district office has received more than 7,000 combined letters and emails in the past week supporting net neutrality. “But, it will be confronted. In all my years of public service, this has been the most overwhelming outpour from my constituents on an issue that I’ve ever had.”
There are multiple routes Congress can take to challenge the FCC.
One way is to perform a Congressional Review Act (CRA), in which it can undo the regulation through its formal evaluation of the law. Another method is for California to pass its own legislation that only allows ISPs that support net neutrality to function in the state, but 70th District Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell said that approach would pose a new set of problems for people outside of California.
“My office is researching what options are available now,” said the California state assemblymember in a phone interview Wednesday. “It’s possible that State Legislature might go the route of allowing only those that subscribe to the net-neutrality rules to operate in California. But, the Internet doesn’t stop at the state border. What would be best is if this is addressed at the Washington level. I’m not confident it will be, given the party that is in control of Washington D.C. So, that means, at the state level, we may have to act if Washington doesn’t.”
“This decision was unfortunate and un-American, from my perspective,” he added.
As a longtime teacher, O’Donnell said the decision is especially troubling for a student’s access to research on the web.
“Well, there’s the known, and then there’s the unknown,” he said. “There’s going to be significant impacts as a result of this decision. The known is that the ISPs now have the ability to block websites at their choosing. So, the way I look at this is kind of like going to the mall, but in order to enter every store, you might have to pay a fee. What we’re doing is that we’re essentially giving our Internet service provider the key; they hold the key to websites across the Internet. And they can choose to lock the website or unlock the website. So, that Internet service provider might not want to allow access to local libraries or other educational resources. From an education perspective, this could block a student’s ability to access research that might be available on the Internet or a variety of institutions. We know they will have the ability to do that; we don’t know if they will employ that. At some point, we know they are going to use this tool, or they wouldn’t have sought it out. This is a tool that will control not only commerce, but the flow of information.”
Burkhard Englert, chair of Cal State Long Beach’s Computer Engineering & Computer Science Department, said in a phone interview Wednesday that the end of net-neutrality principles is going to hit “the weakest the hardest.”
Although Englert pointed out that some institutions, such as Cal State Long Beach, generate their own Internet access through a private server, the challenge is exposed when students rely on online research off-campus.
“The problem is— where it will have an impact— is if a student, let’s say, tries to access the Internet from home or is taking an online class from home,” he said. “If that content that the student is trying to access is not privileged content or nobody makes an extra payment, then the Internet service provider may decide to slow that content down because someone else is paying money for their content streamed over the Internet, and then the student may not be able to watch a lecture video or the quality may be lower than what it normally would be. […] Many students are working, so if they have to access something from home or somewhere else, then it really, potentially, has an impact on their learning and their ability to be successful as students.”
Englert added that the issue creates an uneven playing field.
“Up until now, the Internet has been a sort of equalizer,” he said. “It was one of the great things. […] Once net neutrality goes away, all these things will be harder, and the benefit will go to the one who will pay more. It’s another one of the things that will hurt the people who have the least power to protect themselves.”
Lowenthal said the issue will be one of the major talking points heading into the 2018 election. The congressman, a Democrat, pointed out many of the polarizing policies in the past year coming out of the Republican-led White House, but he noted that net neutrality remains the exception, citing a University of Maryland poll that shows 83 percent of Americans support net neutrality, including 75 percent of Republicans.
“If we begin to listen to the voters out there, then maybe a bipartisan solution could be done, maybe even before the election,” Lowenthal said. “[…] The people love the fact that the Internet is Democratic. It’s fair. They are not being charged for their speed or access is not blocked. […] People want an Internet that is user-oriented, not controlled by the people that make money off of it. While it’s not free— people sometimes call it for free— but what they mean by that is that no one can exploit them and charge them more money to have access to certain websites.”
O’Donnell said the issue does draw interest from both parties, but added that he lacks faith in the ruling political class to do anything about the problem, calling the current White House administration “out of touch with America.”
“Net neutrality is a basic American value,” he said. “There’s so many reasons to have net neutrality. There’s reasons associated with commerce and the free flow of information. You can see ISPs blocking political websites, trying to control speech, from the right and the left. This is an unfortunate event, and I’m confident the reaction will be strong. It’s an important issue that has not received much attention as I think it will going forward.”
