Net Neutrality Is in Danger and Must Be Defended

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, the Tennessee Republican, has been chosen as the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, which has oversight of the FCC, as well as all matters related to cable, wireless, and broadband networks.

AT&T and Verizon have been Blackburn’s second and third largest donors, pouring $75,750 and $72,650 into her campaigns, respectively, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. She has also received $66,000 from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, an industry lobby group, and $49,500 from Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company.

Simply follow the money to understand Blackburn’s most strongly advocated policy positions. She has waged a relentless campaign against the FCC’s policy safeguarding net neutrality, the principle that all internet content should be equally accessible.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality is complicated, but it’s essentially the principle that all internet data should be treated equally, regardless of who creates it. This principle is critical to a free and open internet, and has allowed many of the innovations that have shaped our modern world.

The current net neutrality regulatory framework is based upon six very simple principles:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful internet content of their choice.
2. Consumers are entitled to run lawful applications and services of their choice.
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of devices that do not harm the network.
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among ISPs, application providers, and content providers.
5. ISPs must not discriminate against any legal content or applications.
6. ISPs must disclose all of their policies to customers.

Of course, telcos and cable companies don’t want to be subject to these (or any) rules. They complain that they won’t be able to invest in their networks (false- simply look at the mobile broadband network upgrades, 3G to LTE to 5G, that have occurred under the threat of, and the direct regulation of FCC net neutrality rules). They also complain that business interests don’t support net neutrality rules (false- they define ‘business interests’ as inclusive of only telcos, whereas most internet startups and investors support net neutrality). The real motivation for telcos and cable companies is that they want to be able to charge both sides of the network (consumers and content providers). That’s it.

What if telcos could charge both sides of the network?

If net neutrality regulations are dismantled, it’s difficult to predict exactly how ISPs will behave, but we do know how they behave relative to another information technology- cable television. These same companies control cable TV, and charge both sides of the network. On one side of the network, they only carry content providers who pay them large sums of cash and equity, and on the other side of the network, they offer more channels to customers who pay higher rates than others. Were the current net neutrality rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization of data to be lifted, ISPs would have the ability to determine which content providers can have access to their networks (as they do now with cable TV channels), and what content its consumers have access to (as they do now with cable TV packages).

Let’s compare the cable model vs the internet model side-by-side.

Characteristics of the cable model:

• Cable companies were given local monopolies as incentive to build out the expensive network infrastructure into every home.
• Cable companies leveraged this monopoly to require content providers to pay large cash and equity fees in order to carry them on their networks.
• Even today, cable companies rarely carry more than 1000 channels on their networks (and even fewer content providers, as many content providers own multiple cable channels).

Characteristics of the open internet model (as we know it today) are:

• The internet was deployed on top of existing telecommunications infrastructure.
• Because it utilized existing telecommunications infrastructure, no monopolies were given out as incentives to build out the network.
• Anyone can put a server on the internet and offer service to anyone. There are no gatekeepers charging cash and/or equity fees.
• There are close to 1bn active domains on the global internet.

The current net neutrality fight is between keeping the open internet model or allowing it to be moved to a cable model. It’s a fight between the 1bn active domains and the six or seven wired and wireless carriers who own the internet access market in the US.

What would a ‘cable model’ mean for internet startups and consumers?

Large incumbents like Netflix and Amazon can pay large sums for network access, but will likely pass those increased costs to consumers. Startups without the capital to pay network access fees will be denied access to those networks, or forced onto congested streams, affecting their page views and revenue models. Repealing net neutrality creates a David vs Goliath market dynamic amongst internet content providers, and the Davids (startups) simply don’t have the ability to go toe to toe in the marketplace with the Goliaths (Netflix and Amazon). The unavoidable result will be stifled innovation, as there would no longer exist a monetary incentive to launch an internet startup, and without a monetary incentive there would be no ability to attract investment capital.

What can you do to stop the dismantling of net neutrality?

Fortunately, there is a way to fight this and plenty of precedent.

In 2011, four million emails to members of Congress stopped the Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP Acts in their tracks. These proposals would have done something to the internet similar to what repealing net neutrality would do. The first would have cracked down on the very broadly defined illegal use of copyrighted material on the internet, while the second would have disabled access to websites ‘accused’ of piracy. Both were backed by heavy lobbying efforts from powerful corporate interests, and both would have restricted the free flow of online content and information.

If past experience tells us anything about what should be done to protect net neutrality, it’s that contacting your representatives is a vital step in keeping the internet — one of humanity’s greatest achievements — open and fair.