Skip to content
Naked Security Naked Security

FCC repeals net neutrality

What will this mean for the future of the internet?

As I write this, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is going through the motions, live streaming its commissioners as they (mostly) express support for what turned out to be the inevitable killing of net neutrality: the 3-year-old landmark rule – imposed during the administration of President Obama – that prevents internet service providers (ISPs) from favoring some sites over others by slowing down connections or charging customers a fee for streaming or other services.

…at least, the FCC had been going through the motions, until around 12:51 pm, when the room was evacuated and bomb sniffing dogs were led through the emptied room by their handlers.

Commissioners were let back into the room around 1pm after it had been cleared by security. Within minutes, the room, the internet, and the telecom industry had also been cleared of net neutrality.

There has been much gnashing of teeth.

Clearly, this has been a contentious few months of debate: on one side, telecom giants like AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon have been urging the repeal, which was put forward and championed by Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. They view it as a major victory that will peel back what they see as onerous government regulation.

Getting rid of net neutrality is going to be great for innovation, Pai has been saying, though “blaring from every computer screen in the nation” is actually a joke news piece from The Onion:

Robert Reich, founding fellow of The Sanders Institute – a nonprofit, educational organization founded last year by Jane Sanders, wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to help raise awareness of “enormous crises” facing Americans – called industry claims that net neutrality hurts consumers because it discourages investment in their networks “rubbish.”

Since Net Neutrality was adopted, investment has remained consistent. During calls with investors, telecom executives themselves have even admitted that Net Neutrality hasn’t hurt their businesses.

This is what cable companies can inflict on us in the absence of net neutrality, Reich predicts:

  1. Drive up prices for internet service. Broadband providers could charge customers higher rates to access certain sites, or raise rates for internet companies to reach consumers at faster speeds. Either way, these prices hikes would be passed along to you and me.
  2. Give corporate executives free reign to slow down and censor news or websites that don’t match their political agenda, or give preference to their own content – for any reason at all.
  3. Stifle innovation. Cable companies could severely hurt their competitors by blocking certain apps or online services. Small businesses who can’t afford to pay higher rates could be squeezed out altogether.

No, says former FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell: that’s the rubbish.

Powell, now a lobbyist for the cable and telecom industry, came out with an opinion piece in which he declared that opponents’ protests amount to “hyperbole, demagoguery and even personal threats.”

More from his article, which was published by Recode on Wednesday:

New-age Nostradamuses predict the internet will stop working, democracy will collapse, plague will ensue and locusts will cover the land.

The biggest threat to Silicon Valley innovation and improving consumer experiences isn’t net neutrality; he says; it’s “an internet that stalls and doesn’t get better.”

Powell says that the “vibrant and open internet” that Americans cherish “isn’t going anywhere.” Not for days, not for weeks, not for years: we’ll also still be merrily shopping online for the holidays, oversharing our photos on Instagram, harping on about our political grievances on Facebook, and asking Alexa what the score of the game is. Everything is going to be Just Fine, and the internet Will Not Blow Up.

Why the confidence? Because ISPs value the principles of net neutrality and the open internet more than activists would have you believe, Powell says. After all, it’s easier to make money with an open internet:

A network company makes the most money when its pipe is full with activity. The more consumers use, the more profitable the business. With new, compelling services, consumer demand rises for higher speeds. Degrading the internet, blocking speech and trampling what consumers now have come to expect would not be profitable, and the public backlash would be unbearable. Economic self-interest and the pursuit of profits tilts decidedly toward an open internet.

His optimism is not mirrored throughout the internet.

Senior analyst Michael Fauscette, Chief Research Officer at G2 Crowd, a review website for business software, says that letting a business self-regulate hasn’t gone well in the past, either for the businesses or the public.

Neither is this struggle over. Fauscette predicts that “there will be plenty of lawsuits attempting to put the protections back in place.” Besides whatever happens in the court, there are things happening inside Congress to restore net neutrality by passing a law to protect it. On Tuesday, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) asked net neutrality supporters on “both sides of the aisle” to work with him on a legislative solution.

Would such a law pass anytime soon, given the makeup of the Republican majority House and Senate? Maybe not, but “soon” might come sooner rather than later, given Democrat Doug Jones’ upset victory to become senator in conservative Alabama, plus the fact that influential Republican Ted Cruz is seen as the next conservative in Democrats’ cross-hairs.

In the meantime, take your pick between alternating views of the near future: either everything will be hunky dory, per Powell, or we can all start reaching for our wallets to pay for internet fast lanes or kicking back with a beer as we get shunted onto slow lanes.


7 Comments

I’m expecting HBO, Netflix and so on to push ISPs block out the free TV (ad supported) sites. But, we will see. As a person about to sign a new contract with an ISP, I will be asking for a QoS statement and unfiltered web access. I don’t think I’ll get it, but I’m going to push for it.

Reply

I am also skeptical but wish you the best of luck buddy.

In addition to your predictions I expect my Comcrap connection to suddenly be far less consistent as I stream Netflix…until I call and complain and learn of Comcrap’s new “Premium Interwebs” package. It will include Showtime and HBO Go, which I don’t subscribe to but will pay for if I want Netflix to stop buffering.

Cheers to the (admittedly remote) possibility that we’re all wrong.

Reply

I wouldn’t be so concerned about this if telecoms companies like Comcast and Time Warner/Spectrum weren’t regularly on the list of Worst Companies in America. As it is, the big telecoms, the ISPs, are bad at severely limiting innovation and at stifling access. Not to mention that they regularly eat their competition.
These big companies are all about new sales and maintaining payments on regular contracts. Innovation is low on the priority list for them, while monetizing access is high. Time will tell if these companies prove me wrong by making innovation flourish.

Reply

I agree with your line of thinking, the big issues are the monopolies these companies have, their anti-competitiveness, and transparency. Once they fix that, and most people have access to gigabit or multi-gigabit hook-ups, who cares about neutrality, there’ll be enough pipe for everyone to smoke on.

Reply

I’m amused by the anti-neutrality disciples such as Mr. Powell who claim that none of the predicted changes in Internet pricing/access will happen. If that’s the case, why do the ISP’s care about it? Obviously they want a change to the rules so they can change their practices. Duh!

Reply

> Innovation is low on the priority list for them, while monetizing access is high.

You can’t really mean that. In the last 20 months AT&T, Google Fiber, and Celito (local firm) have each run fiber through my front lawn and are inviting me to connect for Gigabit service at prices similar to or lower than what I’m currently paying for 18 Megabit service. Sounds like innovation to me. And with three providers offering the service, the “invisible hand” of free marketplace competition assures that the prices will remain attractive.

God forbid that we go back to the tariffed, non-negotiable prices that we had with land lines.

Reply

Not gonna lie, I’m rather ambivalent about the whole thing. On one side, a pack of creepy civilian spook outfits that profit from sweet-talking other people into spying on themselves, trolling each other, and generally acting like disposable peasants. On the other, a gang of corrupt, monopolistic telcos who regularly shaft their customers and bribe their way out of trouble. Both of them are acting like spoiled children, spewing out ridiculous accusations and trying to conscript angry mobs to fight a war over what is, as best I can tell, primarily a dispute over how high-volume digital content delivery affects the tier 1 networks and their peering agreements. Snore.

That being said, I’m not overly concerned that the Internet will drown in a sea of payola. If ISPs push too hard, customers will jump ship. Those with “gigabit” residential lines will get throttled and rerouted, but this already happens at the hardware level anyway since ISPs always hilariously oversell bandwidth compared to what their internal lines and the exchange points can actually deliver.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to get the latest updates in your inbox.
Which categories are you interested in?
You’re now subscribed!