Net neutrality has been a hot topic of conversation for at least the last three years when former President Barack Obama urged regulators to protect net neutrality. Things quieted down in 2015 after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did just that, but there were opponents to the regulations. Now, under President Donald Trump’s administration, the topic is back in the spotlight, and it is an important one that impacts consumers and businesses alike, particularly subscription businesses who do most of their business via the Internet.

Here’s an overview of the 2015 legislation, an update on where things stand today, and what’s at stake as we move toward a vote by the FCC later this fall to repeal the 2015 legislation.

What is net neutrality?

The idea behind net neutrality is that all companies, consumers and content should be treated fairly and get equal access to the Internet without special treatment for any customer (e.g., Facebook, Netflix, Google, Amazon, etc.) or broadband Internet provider (e.g., Comcast, Charter, Cox, AT&T and Verizon), sometimes called Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

Net neutrality means that cable and Internet companies cannot discriminate against their competitors, they must act fairly and openly, and they cannot restrict access to online services or websites, regardless of how they are accessed, and companies cannot pay to get priority service. Under the new regulations, the FCC effectively became the consumer watchdog for broadband Internet service with broad oversight.

Here’s another way to look at it. Imagine the information super highway as we know it today. With net neutrality, all lanes move at the same speed, giving businesses and consumers the same access in a fair and free marketplace. Without net neutrality, faster lanes, like HOV lanes, and tolls could exist for some drivers but not others, and slow lanes might impact drivers who cannot afford to “pay to play.”

SavetheInternet.com, which is supported and presented by Free Press, describes net neutrality this way:

“Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. Net Neutrality means an internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that ISPs should provide us with open networks – and shouldn’t block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t interfere with the content you view or post online.”

Obama urged FCC to adopt new rules and regulations to ensure net neutrality

In November 2014, Obama urged the FCC, an independent agency, to adopt tougher laws to protect consumers from unfair prioritization, based on the principles of openness, fairness and freedom. The New York Times republished his video plea, originally produced by WhiteHouse.gov.

“Abandoning these principles would threaten the Internet as we know it,” Obama said. “…that’s why I am urging the Federal Communications Commission to do everything they can to protect net neutrality for everyone. They should make it clear that, whether you use a computer, phone or tablet, Internet providers have a legal obligation not to limit or block your access to a website. Cable companies can’t decide which online stores you can shop at or which streaming services you can use, and they can’t let any company pay for priority over its competitors.”

Obama asked the FCC to reclassify high-speed Internet as a telecommunications service, or a utility, making it subject to regulation under Title II of the Communications Act

Under the authority of then-chair Tom Wheeler, the FCC listened. On February 26, 2015, the FCC officially adopted a 400-page set of rules to regulate how broadband Internet providers should treat content. In its introduction to that document, the FCC explains why an open Internet is so important:

“The open Internet drives the American economy and serves, every day, as a critical tool for America’s citizens to conduct commerce, communicate, education, entertain, and engage in the world around them. The benefits of an open Internet are undisputed. But it must remain open: open for commerce, innovation, and speech; open for consumers and for the innovation created by applications developers and content companies; and open for expansion and investment by America’s broadband providers. For over a decade, the Commission has been committed to protecting and promoting an open Internet,” said the FCC.

The introduction went on to explain that since the FCC adopted open Internet rules in 2011, the broadband marketplace had changed significantly with providers investing $212 billion from 2011 to 2013. In addition, companies like Netflix, Etsy, CBS, HBO, DISH, ESPN and Sony had expanded their products and services to utilize broadband Internet for e-commerce, streaming video on demand, and other online products and services.

“The lesson of this period, and the overwhelming consensus on the record, is that carefully-tailored rules to protect Internet openness will allow investment and innovation to continue to flourish. Consistent with that experience and the record built in this proceeding, today we adopt carefully-tailored rules that would prevent specific practices we know are harmful to Internet openness – blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization – as well as a strong standard of conduct designed to prevent the deployment of new practices that would harm Internet openness. We also enhance our transparency rule to ensure that consumers are fully informed as to whether the services they purchase are delivering what they expected,” the FCC said.

The FCC’s new regulations did not pass unanimously, however. Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel supported the new regulations, while Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly did not. The vote passed 3 to 2. [Note: Pai is now the FCC Chairman and Clyburn and O’Rielly remain commissioners. Wheeler and Rosenworcel are no longer with the FCC. Trump replaced Wheeler with Pai when he became president.]

The next chapter

While not everyone supported the new legislation, it remained untouched until Trump took office in January. Three months later, in April, FCC chair Pai, a Republican appointed by Trump, sent a proposal to the other commissioners stating that he wanted to repeal the “heavy-handed government oversight of the Internet,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

In an op-ed piece for the LA Times, Pai explained his position, stating that the regulations were adopted on a “party-line vote” based on what might happen in the future:

“Proponents of Internet regulation claimed that without new rules, the Internet would devolve into a digital dystopia of fast lanes and slow lanes, where service providers would treat traffic differently based on payments. And they argued that the only way for the government to prevent this outcome was to adopt an old regulatory framework called Title II – originally designed in the 1930s for the Ma Bell telephone monopoly – and apply it to thousands of Internet service providers, big and small. In other words, they wanted lawyers and bureaucrats to govern the Internet rather than engineers, technologists and businesses,” wrote Pai.

He said that, as he’d anticipated, investment in broadband decreased by 5.6 percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016. He also said that, as a result, fewer Americans have high-speed broadband access, there is less competition, and less innovation is likely. He also said the FCC abused its authority.

Pai’s plan is to seek public input to restore “the successful, bipartisan framework for promoting Internet freedom and infrastructure investment that the FCC abandoned in 2015.”

It looks like Pai may get his wish. In May, the FCC voted 2 to 1 to begin the process to neutralize net neutrality and to remove it from regulation under Title II of the Communications Act, said Ars Technica. The proposal will be open for public comment until August 16. Public comments are being accepted online at the FCC, and the response is mixed. There are a number of “copy-and-paste” style responses that read like this:

Others are lengthier responses outlining specific concerns, but they also appear to have been copied and pasted, so it is difficult to know if the supporters and opponents of net neutrality are real people, bots or targeted campaigns to fight the other side.

Ironically, in a speech that Pai gave at a “Broadband for All” seminar in Stockholm, Sweden on Monday, appeared to have argued in favor of net neutrality:

“Since my first day as Chairman of the FCC, I’ve said repeatedly that my number one priority is closing the digital divide and bringing the benefits of the Internet age to all Americans.

The FCC’s founding statute charges my agency with making communications services, ‘available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States.’ Communications for all-which in 2017 means Broadband for All-is the main reason my agency exists.

That’s what the law says.  But here’s what I believe: Every American who wants to participate in our digital economy should be able to do so.  Access to online opportunity shouldn’t depend on who you are or where you’re from,” said Pai.

He later backtracked, saying, “We’ve proposed to restore the decades-long, cross-party consensus on light-touch Internet regulation. Our goal is to have both a free and open Internet and rules that maximize investment in next-generation networks. Right now, we’re getting public input on our proposal.  After that, we’ll decide how to move forward based on the facts, the law, and sound economics.”

The two statements don’t seem to be aligned, because repealing net neutrality regulation would actually inhibit competition and innovation.

The opposition

Before the May vote, supporters of net neutrality protested outside FCC headquarters in Washington, D.C., said Ars Technica, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, Free Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, and the National Hispanic Media Coalition. The Free Press said supporters had more than 1 million signatures supporting the existing net neutrality rules.

U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey, said, “Today, President Trump’s FCC took the first step to dismantle net neutrality. This action will undermine the free and open Internet and hand its control over to a few powerful corporate interests.”

In a Now This op-ed video, Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) said, “This is insane. Ever since the Internet started, every innovation, every advance has happened because we have treated content neutrally.”

He is joined by other Democratic Senators Ed Markey (Massachusetts) and Ron Wyden (Oregon) who said that net neutrality is being threatened by the FCC and powerful special interest groups. A few control the many.

“Now what they wanna do is create a fast lane for businesses that can afford a fast lane,” said Sen. Franken. “Right now, you get a blog post from some, ya know, right-wing or left-wing or middle-of-the road blogger, all at the same damn time. And that goes at the same speed as The New York Times or as Fox News’ website, and it all competes with each other. But, if just the big businesses, the big, wealthy, deep-pocketed businesses are able to go at a faster speed, then all that other stuff won’t get through to you.”

In the video, Sen. Markey said that FCC Chair Pai “is bringing a very conservative, free market philosophy” to the FCC that will play to the most powerful communication companies in the nation, essentially choking out smaller businesses and restricting their access to the Internet.

Sen. Franken concludes the video with this:

“This is the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. It’s about the future of the small guy, small woman, tall people as well. We need your voices heard.”

Despite Franken’s cheeky sense of humor, this is a very serious issue. One that will affect each and every one of us.

The impact if we lose net neutrality

Here’s how it will affect businesses, including subscription companies, large and small. Without net neutrality:

• Whether they are startups or seasoned pros, subscription companies will no longer be able to rely on fair, unrestricted access to the Internet to reach their customers.
• Barriers to entry for subscription companies could increase. Right now, even startups can afford to test their new subscription products and services on a small scale, because the cost of doing business on the internet and their ability to reach customers online is the same, whether they are reaching 100 or 100,000 subscribers. If their competitors can get priority access to the Internet, startups, entrepreneurs and other early stage companies may find themselves at a disadvantage.
• Companies cannot compete on a level playing field, as broadband Internet providers become gatekeepers of the Internet and can offer priority access to bigger players.
• Innovation and competition are stifled.
• Freedom of speech and freedom of the press will be restricted as voices that “pay to play” choke out the little guy, gal or organization who can’t afford the same access.

Insider Take:

As a publisher, we support the First Amendment and strongly believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, inherent rights supported by a free and open Internet. As an organization that supports subscription companies of all sizes and types, we encourage innovation and competition, and oppose anything that inhibits or restricts the free digital marketplace. Unfortunately, repealing net neutrality will set us back, both as consumers and as business owners, and we oppose this action. We hope the FCC will listen to the millions who oppose Pai’s plan, but given the political climate, it is quite possible that Pai – and Trump – will get their way.