Save net neutrality before it’s too late

[Len]

What happens with the end of net neutrality?

You try to access a voice service, like Skype, to call a family member only to realize that you cannot do so without Wi-Fi. You try to pay back a friend using your Google Wallet, only to find the service blocked by your internet provider. You try to stream the newest season of “Stranger Things” only to find it buffering and playing at a snail’s pace.

The internet looks very different if the rules governing equal access to varied content are taken away.

As soon as Dec. 14 of this year, the protections preventing these scenarios could be wiped away. Shortly after being appointed by President Donald Trump, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai proposed ending net neutrality.

Net neutrality is a concept that means internet service providers must treat all data on the internet the same for each user — they cannot have different charge structures or discriminate against certain users, sites or platform. It was based on the idea of common carriers — a similar provision is in place for telephone companies and systems.

Understanding net neutrality is perhaps easiest when you can picture the world without it. The examples above are real – AT&T restricted Skype usage to a wi-fi only service because it was competing with similar but less-used systems that AT&T employed. Services such as Google Wallet could not be accessed if your ISP was AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile. Why? Because the services competed with ISPs’ unfortunately-named wallet app, Isis.

These violations of net neutrality stretch back to 2007, when Comcast slowed upload speed for peer-to-peer file sharing, including protocols like BitTorrent. BitTorrent eventually filed lawsuits against Comcast, and the FCC stepped in to ensure that Comcast would not continue this practice.

These practices have always been mildly contentious; ISPs would prefer to roll back net neutrality regulations because then they could encourage users to use their platform rather than other services — like AT&T tried to do with Skype. This could be achieved by slowing the speed of other services or charging more for different kinds of access. In 2016, AT&T prodded users to use DirecTV Now — a subsidiary of AT&T — by not counting data used on the service toward monthly data allowances.

Obviously ISPs would benefit greatly from looser net neutrality restrictions, but in 2015 the Obama administration pushed for the FCC to classify broadband Internet services as telecommunications services. Months later, the FCC fulfilled this, classifying broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

This meant that broadband ISPs could not discriminate in their pricing or access to content, among other things. This was one of the biggest wins for guaranteeing free and equal access to the internet in years.

It was obviously a step in the right direction, and one that would be significantly damaged if the FCC loosens its restrictions.

Countries that do not have net neutrality face a slew of problems that American internet consumers may not yet realize. For example, in Portugal, internet services are purchased in bundles — if you want Facebook you will also be paying for Twitter and Instagram as part of a social media bundle, even if you don’t have a Twitter account. In addition to social media bundles, you have separate bundles for other kinds of communication — messaging, music and email.

This kind of pricing and bundling is currently prohibited by the FCC, but with less regulation, it could become a reality.

Internet access shouldn’t be priced like cable, instead it should be like a utility. With the February 2015 classification of broadband as a common carrier, the internet became a public utility in the eyes of the law. Most would agree that privatizing the price of water wouldn’t be ethical, especially because the likely outcome would be higher prices for something that is necessary. While internet is not a need like water is, consumers shouldn’t face higher prices for something that is nearly ubiquitously used.

The Dec. 14 vote on Pai’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal, which is likely to pass in the five-member commission, has gone underreported. John Oliver ran two segments on Last Week Tonight, but much of the news media has only sparingly touched on this vote. The vote has the potential to hand control of the internet over to ISPs rather than guaranteeing equal access to Internet users. It would drastically reshape the way we use the internet in ways we cannot imagine, having only the known the internet as a free platform for any and everyone.

If it strikes you as at all important that the internet remain as it is, there are ways to express this. You can reach out to your representatives and senators in Congress. You can file complaints directly with the FCC, using the proceeding number 17-108. It can be daunting to reach out to the federal government or it may seem ludicrous that your action would have any effect, but it’s imperative that those who want to keep the internet as it is speak out now, because it might genuinely be too late after Dec. 14.