{"id":401,"date":"2019-12-19T16:49:16","date_gmt":"2019-12-19T21:49:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/?page_id=401"},"modified":"2019-12-23T17:18:31","modified_gmt":"2019-12-23T22:18:31","slug":"net-neutrality","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/explanations\/net-neutrality\/","title":{"rendered":"Net Neutrality"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/h2>\n
\"Visual
Image Source: https:\/\/www.androidauthority.com\/tech-companies-net-neutrality-823489\/<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

<\/span>What is Net Neutrality?<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

In the most simplest terms, network neutrality (or net neutrality) is a principle of equal access, arguing for all network traffic to be treated without discrimination. This traffic could be anything from user content, websites, video streaming or any other method of internet communication. (1<\/a>)<\/span>\u00a0The term \u201cnetwork neutrality\u201d was coined by<\/span> Tim Wu<\/span><\/i><\/a> in a<\/span> 2003 paper<\/span><\/i><\/a> in order to address online discrimination. Wu worried that an internet provider\u2019s ability to restrict new technologies would hurt innovation in the long term, advocating for anti-discrimination rules.<\/span><\/p>\n

Internet service providers (ISP) are like the \u201cinternet gatekeepers\u201d, connecting people to the internet. These are companies such as AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast among others. Network access is controlled by the ISPs since they are the ones that own the infrastructure, yet the interests of the users of the networks are not always represented in the ISPs decisions. Net neutrality assumes that government regulation can offer a balance between ISP and users interests. ISPs could potentially block or slow some websites while prioritizing or charging more for others to run faster. Internet users want access to the services they choose, but ISPs want to be paid more for higher data usage. For example, an ISP could slow down video streaming on Netflix in order to encourage users to use a different video-streaming service such as Hulu because they pay more. One of the reasons why ISPs would want to treat internet traffic differently is because maintaining high-bandwidth capacity infrastructure is costly. Streaming has become more popular and services such as Netflix, Hulu, Skype or Facetime are bandwidth intensive, requiring more data than say hosting your own website. ISPs get paid the same amount regardless of data usage, putting ISPs in a position to either <\/span>throttle<\/span><\/a> bandwidth intensive activity or want to be paid more in return for more data usage. Throttling is an intentional slowing of internet traffic by an ISP. It is used as a measure to regulate traffic, minimizing bandwidth congestion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

An example of this was in 2007 when Comcast was caught throttling BitTorrent traffic on its network, making it so slow that it was almost unusable for users. BitTorrent is one of the most common protocols for transferring large files, such as video or audio. Slowing down their services would prompt users to find alternatives. The FCC ordered Comcast to stop, but Comcast appealed and won. Formed in 1934, the Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the U.S. regulating interstate communications such as radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The failure of the FCC to win the case against Comcast shows how net neutrality regulation can largely be up to interpretation, with many different people having different ideas of what it means to have a \u201cfree\u201d internet. The FCC losing in the courts further shows that even different branches of government may disagree on net neutrality regulations, muddying the waters even more. Throttling can lead to the formation of paid prioritization allowing ISPs to funnel internet traffic into paid \u201ctoll lanes\u201d. This would create a multi-tiered internet where in demand content is behind expensive paywalls. Another consequence would be a reduction of consumer choice because specific ISPs would allow access for certain content, while bottlenecking others.<\/span>(2<\/a>) This would essentially allow ISPs to shape the content of the web, becoming gatekeepers to whatever they see fit and concentrating power to a small number of corporations. Net neutrality is essential to a free, open internet.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>A Timeline of Net Neutrality<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

<\/span>Common Carrier Law Before The Internet:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

The base argument for net neutrality long predates the internet with idea of \u201ccommon carriers\u201d. The purpose of common carrier law was to ensure that businesses being paid to transport goods, people or later on data, must do so in a way that was agnostic to the thing being transported.(3<\/a>)<\/span> Before the internet, common carrier law was being applied to railroad companies by congress with the<\/span> Interstate Commerce Act of 1887<\/span><\/a>. This prevented railroads from discriminating against certain passengers by things such as race or sex and from charging different prices to certain passengers.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>Timeline of the Formation of Net Neutrality:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

1934<\/b>: Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the<\/span> Communications Act<\/span><\/a> into law. This law replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). What this meant was that the FCC was granted authority to update its rules that reflected changes in technology and marketplace behavior while also protecting consumers.(4<\/a>)<\/span>\u00a0At the time, emerging technologies of the day included broadcast TV and telephones. The act also established a set of \u201cTitles\u201d that would govern communication entities. One of these titles was Title II: Common Carrier. This bestowed the FCC with the power to classify a communication organization as a \u201ccommon carrier\u201d. This took the existing idea of common carriage law and applied it, for the first time ever, into electronic communication. This act planted the seeds for the root of net neutrality, enforcing the notion of a<\/span> universal service<\/span><\/a>. (5<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

1996<\/b>: Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This was the first time the Communications Act of 1934 was amended. The act enabled competition within local exchange areas that had been monopolies for many years. It also provided regulations that forced local carriers to share their communication facilities with competitors at established rates.(6<\/a>)<\/span>\u00a0In short, the acts aim was to promote competition while reducing regulation in order to encourage development within telecommunication technologies.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2005<\/b>: The Supreme court classifies cable internet (broadband) as an information service, taking away the FCC\u2019s regulation over it. Since the FCC only has jurisdiction over telecommunication services.(7<\/a>)<\/span> This handed broadband regulation over to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), which meant that the FCC had less regulatory authority and therefore less ability to protect consumers. The FCC and FTC have overlapping jurisdiction on many issues and work together towards the common end of protecting consumers and fostering competition. However, the FCC largely focuses on the telecom industry while the FTC presides over every other market except banks and non-profits<\/span>.(8<\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2010<\/b>: The FCC passed the<\/span> Open Internet Order<\/span><\/a> which called for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to treat Internet traffic equally. This order was a move towards achieving net neutrality. It called for ISPs to 1. be transparent about how they handle network congestion, 2. prohibit blocking of traffic on wired networks, and 3. outlaw unreasonable discrimination on those networks.<\/span>(9<\/a>) However, some advocates criticized the order for not going far enough so that it would also prevent providers from creating \u201cfast lanes\u201d of prioritization.<\/span><\/p>\n

2015<\/b>: The FCC approved a new set of net neutrality regulations under chairman Tom Wheeler that classified broadband internet service as a public utility, subjecting it to government regulation. These regulations focused on keeping the open internet and business interests separate.<\/span><\/p>\n

2017<\/b>: With Trump as president, he appoints Ajit Pai as the new FCC Chairman. Ajit worked on repealing the Obama era net neutrality regulations set forth calling net neutrality an \u201cunnecessary regulation\u201d. He worked towards removing various protections such as removing privacy measures set up by the FCC that kept internet usage data, such as browsing habits, locations and app usage, private from ISPs who could then sell it to advertisers.<\/span>\u00a0(10<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

2018<\/b>: The Trump FCC repealed the 2015, Obama era net neutrality regulations with the misleading title of the \u201c<\/span>Restoring Internet Freedom Order<\/span><\/a>\u201d.The title of this act showed that Ajit, among others, idea of what a \u201cfree\u201d internet means was more focused towards the benefit of corporations rather than consumers.\u00a0 It also showed that it can be hard to come to an agreement on exactly what an \u201copen and free internet\u201d really means and sets forth the question, who\u2019s freedom are you fighting for? Regulation largely tends to be subject to people of other ideals and forces and what they believe to be right.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>Where Are We Now & Why Does It Still Matter?<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

It is clear from the timeline, net neutrality rests in the hands of the courts, state and Congress. There is a lot of back and forth with net neutrality regulations depending on the president in office and their standpoint on net neutrality. One of the bigger debates has been how to classify ISPs. In 2015, the FCC classified ISPs as \u201ctelecommunication services\u201d under Title II of the 1943 Communications Act. However, the 2018 regulation reclassified ISPs as an \u201cinformation service\u201d under Title I. This classification has a very big difference as Title 1 allows FCC regulatory control over ISPs from pricing to privacy, while Title I grants the FCC far less control. (11<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s been over a year since net neutrality was repealed and one can already see the effects. A year ago, Verizon was throttling the Santa Clara County Fire Department\u2019s broadband during the worst fire in California\u2019s history. Is it fair or ethical for Verizon to be slowing a fire department\u2019s broadband, especially during huge forest fires that were putting lives in danger? The FCC rescinded its authority over broadband so they no longer had the power to do anything and going to the FTC would have taken too long to solve complaints. (12<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2017, the FCC and FTC outlined a joint plan to handle the repealing of net neutrality protections set forth just two years prior under the Obama administration. This outlined the FCC leaving the task of policing ISPs to the FTC instead. This new change was a departure from the proactive measures taken during the Title II era because now the FTC is only able to take action if a company violates the trust of the consumers. If a company is transparent about their policy to, for instance, block access to certain services, they would be completely clear from repercussions<\/span>. (13<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

America has a big problem with internet infrastructure as well as access due to the lack of competition between providers. While no ISP owns the entire US market, the way they\u2019ve arranged their services has led to a de facto monopoly, where certain areas have no choice but to go with the sole provider available. This uncompetitive market gives ISPs a lot of power to dictate what they want on the internet. The only protection against this is government regulations, which within the past few years have seen a dismantling of these protections. Absence of net neutrality will also have rippling effects in other parts of the world. The globalized economy has allowed for businesses to expand their customer base internationally. For example, if Comcast was to charge Netflix more money for their streaming services, it would be the consumers that would bear the cost and not just limited to American consumers<\/span>.(14<\/a>) It also puts smaller businesses at a disadvantage because they are unable to pay higher prices than larger companies. At the end of the day, prioritization comes down to money and who is willing to pay more towards faster services. As it stands now, different stakeholders have differing interests in how they want internet services to be regulated. Understanding where each of them come from and what they want may help us better understand how to balance regulation in favor of everyone rather than a few high paying companies.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many people still want to see through the battle for net neutrality, on both sides. The basis of net neutrality\u2019s argument is to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. Allowing ISPs the power to control what traffic is prioritized, puts this at risk. The assumption behind net neutrality is that it advocates to keep the internet neutral and classifies it as a public utility, along with water and electricity. The difference between having net neutrality or dismantling it is the difference between the internet being a necessity versus a luxury.<\/span>\u00a0(15<\/a>) The fight for it is not over.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

<\/span>Sources:<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

1.\u00a0<\/span><\/i>https:\/\/medium.com\/skycoin\/net-neutrality-and-the-tyranny-of-the-isps-3f2414f91fce<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

2.<\/span><\/i>https:\/\/medium.com\/@TebbaVonMathenstien\/network-neutrality-a-history-of-common-carrier-laws-1884-2018-2b592f22ed2e<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0https:\/\/www.wired.com\/story\/guide-net-neutrality\/<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0https:\/\/www.sutori.com\/story\/the-history-of-net-neutrality-in-the-u-s–ArcCz6smM1Cq1sfAew3GenjT<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

5.\u00a0https:\/\/www.inverse.com\/article\/38735-net-neutrality-timeline-fcc-meeting<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

6.\u00a0https:\/\/www.quotecolo.com\/net-neutrality-timeline-major-events\/<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

7.\u00a0<\/span><\/i>https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2019\/7\/9\/20687903\/net-neutrality-was-repealed-a-year-ago-whats-happened-since<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

8.\u00a0<\/span><\/i>https:\/\/www.brookings.edu\/blog\/techtank\/2019\/10\/07\/in-the-net-neutrality-debate-what-might-follow-mozilla-v-fcc\/<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

9.\u00a0https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2017\/11\/23\/16693840\/net-neutrality-us-fcc-global-effect<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

10.\u00a0https:\/\/www.rferl.org\/a\/united-states-internet-neutrality-explainer\/28920398.html<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

11.\u00a0https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/topic\/Telecommunications-Act<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

12.\u00a0https:\/\/broadbandnow.com\/report\/fcc-vs-ftc-police-internet\/<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

13. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/BitTorrent<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What is Net Neutrality? In the most simplest terms, network neutrality (or net neutrality) is a principle of equal access, arguing for all network traffic to be treated without discrimination. This traffic could be anything from user content, websites, video streaming or any other method of internet communication. (1)\u00a0The term \u201cnetwork neutrality\u201d was coined by … Continue reading “Net Neutrality”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":0,"parent":19,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-401","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/401"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/29"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=401"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/401\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":413,"href":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/401\/revisions\/413"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/19"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itp.nyu.edu\/networks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}