By now, you’ve probably heard about potential change on the horizon to "net neutrality," a set of FCC rules that—for now, at least—dictate that internet service providers (read: the huge companies you pay for internet access) cannot block, slow down, or charge for access to particular websites, streaming services, or platforms. Specifically, current FCC Chairman (and former Verizon lawyer) Ajit Pai has been hell-bent on overturning those regulations, doing away with Title II of the Communications Act (which affects how ISPs are classified) to potentially destroy the concept of a free and open internet as we know it. The members vote tomorrow.
While 98.5% of the unique public comments on proposed Title II overhaul supported existing rules, Pai, the ISPs, and others who stand to gain from a reversal, want you to believe that these consumer protections stifle innovation and prevent investment in the broadband infrastructure that powers internet access.
Evidence suggests that simply isn’t true. Just as the proposed GOP tax cuts for the rich rely on shaky assumptions and selective data about the relationship between a marginal increase in wealth and meaningful economic activity, there’s simply no guarantee that ending net neutrality would incentivize investment by companies who have enjoyed billions in profits since before these rules were codified. As Wired points out, Comcast (the nation’s biggest ISP) actually increased its investment in telecom infrastructure after consumer protections were enacted in 2015. AT&T’s investment declined only because a $14 billion, three-year project to upgrade its wireless and DSL services concluded before the rules took effect.
If anything, eliminating net neutrality will create new paths of least resistance to profit for ISPs, as they would be able to exploit a lack of regulation to throttle access to competing streaming services they don’t own and charge extra for access to certain websites, essentially turning an open and democratic platform into a really big cable TV package.
So what does that mean for those in the design and architecture worlds? For one, it’ll be harder to get a business with an internet-based presence (read: any business that exists in 2017-18) off the ground. Just as an ISP could charge consumers to access specific sites—something that’s already happening in countries without net neutrality—it could charge sites to gain access to their subscriber base, creating extra startup costs. And without paying ISPs for quicker load times in prioritized “fast lanes,” visual-heavy sites for design firms and individual portfolios would load interminably slowly, meaning less traffic and fewer potential clients. That’s not to mention the potential introduction of pricing tiers for streaming video quality, bans on lawful content that threaten an ISPs business interests, and the uncertainty around cloud-based business activity.
With a vote scheduled for tomorrow expected to be split 3-2 in favor of deregulation, it’s imperative that those interested in a free and open internet reach out to the FCC by contacting the offices of potential yes voters Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr, and Mike O’Reilly. You can also leave a public comment in support of Title II preservation on the FCC’s proposal, and call your elected representatives. Even if the measure passes, there are sure to be challenges in the courts and potentially on the floor of Congress in the months and years ahead. With even some Republican congresspeople opposing Pai’s plan, it’ll be important to keep up the pressure even if tomorrow’s battle is lost.
