University of Florida
Regulate, Legislate or Ignore? (University of Florida News)
Net neutrality is important to all things digital because it speaks directly to the governance and control of the world’s most important platform for communication, commerce, entertainment and education. The timing of the debate about net neutrality is especially important because of the explosion in the number of devices connected to the Internet – the so-called “Internet-of-Things” and “Internet-of-Everything.” Once everything is (more or less) connected, the world will change. The management of the platform and the applications will define life in the mid- to late 21st century.
The Open Internet Order passed in 2015 with support from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The OIO regulates ISP control over content distribution and access. Net Neutrality is part of the OIO. Wikipedia sums it up:
“Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication … research suggests that a combination of policy instruments will help realize the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the network neutrality debate. Combined with strong public opinion, this has led some governments to regulate broadband Internet services as a public utility, similar to the way electricity, gas and water supply is regulated, along with limiting providers and regulating the options those providers can offer … there has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law in the United States … advocates of net neutrality have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their ‘last mile’ infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors … opponents claim net-neutrality regulations are unnecessary and deter investment into improving broadband infrastructure … Ajit Pai, Republican Chairman of the FCC under the newly appointed Trump administration, has begun to reverse former President Obama’s net neutrality policies … he has made his stance on government regulation very clear. Pai has stated that moving forward, the FCC will focus on ‘expanding broadband deployment and encouraging innovative service offerings.’ Pai’s agenda benefits Internet Service Providers (ISPs) by minimizing restrictions that would require them to be transparent about the rates they charge content providers.”
Why is the timing of Pai’s reversal so important? Because the Internet will become the global platform upon which all transactions occur. IOT/IOE is the primary basis upon which Net Neutrality 2.0 should be discussed. If everything is eventually connected to the Internet, and dependency upon the Internet steadily rises, the “business” of the Internet should be assessed with eyes directly on the Internet “life” of consumers.
The major assumption of those against net neutrality is that deregulation will encourage innovation, since commercial ISPs can charge certain customers more money than others (in exchange for most-favored provisioning). The “extra” money can be plowed back into internet infrastructure projects that benefit everyone. The proponents of net neutrality argue that without regulation in some form there will be abuses of access, distribution and privacy. What are the issues? Some of the major ones include the control of data, digital rights, digital freedoms, slow-loading, competition, innovation, standards, pseudo-services and privacy, among others. But at the end of the day, it’s about control and the regulatory oversight necessary to enable consumer and corporate rights and freedoms.
Balance – as always – is the watchword, but “balance” is always defined in a social, financial and political context, and herein lies the challenge. Context is “interpretable” and therefore subject to ebbs and flows, which makes one’s positioning predictable and anything but evidence neutral.
Should the challenges be seen through the eyes of consumers or boards of directors? Can they be the same? Obviously not, but is there some common ground? Here’s an attempt to address the unfortunate politics that’s redefining the net neutrality debate. First, consumers and companies of all sizes and stages, should be protected against biases and abuses, whatever forms they might take, and the abuses should be monitored (yes, this is called “regulation”). Next, Internet infrastructure innovation investments should be encouraged but they should be measured and required: a specific percentage of revenue should be invested in pure, well-defined innovation (I guess this is also called “regulation”).
