Net Neutrality Rules and The Consequences of Its Repeal

Although leaders allied to different political divides have publicly expressed differences in many policy matters, one of the most recent contention was witnessed in repealing the net neutrality rules introduced by the Obama administration just a few years back. Notably, Ajit Pai who is the current head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President Donald Trump, was a key pillar driving the agenda to remove the net-neutrality rules. Central to his arguments in favor of the idea was that it would allow internet service providers adequate space to innovate. According to him, the regulations could not have the alleged adverse effects on internet users, which he disregarded as myths. On the other hand, those opposed to the changes have a different stance claiming that it impedes the already accomplished goals of democracy in internet usage. The current paper looks at the contentions behind net neutrality rules, what they mean and the implications of doing away with such rules and regulations to the users.

Meaning of Net Neutrality Rules

Importantly, net neutrality relates the existence of openness in the usage of internet service and the controls measures instituted by internet service providers (ISPs) on the information. Precisely, it means that no service providers should be in a position to unfairly interfere with one’s internet usage or the web experience. The rules introduced in 2015 hinder the ISPs from initiating any action that would hinder the functionality of the services. The rules implored on the need for heavy regulation to prevent the providers from artificially persuading customers to use certain applications and sites with whom they have vested interest, or they control.

As per the former rules, all customer data was supposed to be treated fairly and at equal speeds regardless of the service. Therefore, users could access social media platforms and other sites like Netflix that require bandwidth-heavy service at similarly speeds. The decision to repeal the rules was regarded as controversial since the same body-FCC that introduced them in good faith was the same commission repealing them. This scenario was clearly instigated by the change in administration from Obama to President Trump. Nonetheless, the Commission passed the rules on 14 Dec 2017 meaning the internet providers were no longer bound by the net neutrality rules.

With the new changes to the rules already passed by the Commission, a common question lies in the duration it would take for the repeal to take effect and influence the user’s internet experience. Doing this is usually a process that takes several weeks and sometimes months. The initial step involves concluding the adjustment of the rules.

Then, the results of compiled regulations are filed with the Federal register in a process that can take several months. However, the fact that many companies and members of the public are opposed to the regulations could fuel legal battles and appeals to the Congress to reverse the decision. In such a case, the rules may not apply any time soon. If allowed to stand, they would be applicable in the next few months.

Notwithstanding the Commissions attempts to brand the negative effects of their actions as myths, it is imperative to note that the rules may greatly change internet usage and experience. A major problem associated with the decision is paid prioritization (Reed). When the new rules take effect, one occurrence is that the service providers will be under no obligation to treat and regard all traffic in the same way. That way, the ISPs can start developing internet speed levels where they will prioritize certain sites and disregard other. Without the neutrality regulations, they can then set a fee for prioritization and consideration of sites under the revamped connection. In reality, what that would mean is that the providers would pass the extra cost to the consumers by imposing increased prices.

Another potential result of the removal is the blocking of users from accessing some platforms or websites. However, the proponent of the repeal is keen to the point that such cases were unheard-of in prior to the introduction of the rules and there is no truth that they would come up. Still, the failure to indulge in such practice by providers is more of a hope than a fact. Notably, the previous rules hinder ISPs from controlling and limiting users’ access to the site which is no longer stipulated. Thus, the intervention for neutrality removal means that service providers can block certain content such as legal information at will contrary to the previous case. This way, they can slow the internet speeds for users accessing certain sites, a case that is referred to as throttling. The result is that they can extort more money from their customers. For example, providers who run video services of their own can slow down the connections of competing sites hence increasing customer volumes to their site. Despite the effects on the reputation, the absence of rules means that the ISPs are not barred to the malicious act in the future.

Those who support the former rules argue that the repeal enables the providers to throttle services, block certain websites as well as censor online content. In so doing, they will favor and discriminate the internet speeds of companies that have honored the pay to play agreement while consigning other companies to slow internet speeds. This action is wrong and malicious and one that internet users hope never happens.

On the critics’ side, the main argument suggested to support the repeal is that it will increase innovation by the internet service providers. According to Commissioner Pai, this could potentially increase investment in the sector which he says has fallen since the introduction of net neutrality regulations. On that note, those who support the removal of the rules are of the notion that they led to reduced investment in broadband that has registered a decline for two consecutive years. This scenario has never been witnessed since the internet era recession.

However, this point is however disputed by other people who view that the rules did not affect the investment. The internet association pointed that the Internet providers still continued to grow in terms of capital expenditure, prices as well as patents. Moreover, it is argued that ISPs persisted with their innovation investment spree at equivalent or enhanced rates in the prevailing regulatory environment. Likewise, leaders of the major companies insist that any cuts in their investment was planned some years back and could not attribute to the net neutrality rules.

Conclusively, it is evident that the decision to adopt the repeal of net neutrality rules warrants the public outcry and the divided views. Some feel it is a step in the right direction while others believe the action was decided in good faith and that meant to backtrack on the benefits achieved over the years. There are several issues that need to be addressed to ensure that every member of the public, including the critics, understand the need and benefits of the repeal. Equally important is the need to educate the average internet user of the implications of the action and the endeavor to ensure their interests are safeguarded.