Bored & Confused: What is net neutrality?

While we’ve been enjoying our Thanksgiving meals, we soon may not be able to enjoy another key pleasure in life: net neutrality. So, what exactly is net neutrality, and why does it matter?

Net neutrality is “the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all sorts of digital traffic equally.” Columbia Law School Professor Tim Wu explained that net neutrality is important because it preserves capitalist competition to ensure the best internet service and products for consumers. Most people are fine with the general principles of net neutrality. The real controversy lies within net neutrality rules and the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to regulate them. Net neutrality prohibits blocking (ISPs cannot block access to a certain website), paid prioritization (a website cannot pay an ISP to secure faster loading times), throttling (ISPs cannot slow down a certain website’s connection), and finally, ensuring transparency (ISPs must provide information as to how they maintain internet speeds) to ensure equal access to the internet.

In 2015, the FCC ruled that the internet is a utility, and thus they had the power to regulate and establish these rules on major internet providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T. However, this year, the new FCC chairman Ajit Pai criticized net neutrality’s classification as a utility, because it inhibits ISPs' ability to innovate and grow. Therefore, Pai has proposed to disband all FCC rules governing net neutrality. This initiative will be voted on and most likely passed along Republican party lines on Dec. 14.

It is imperative that the FCC maintains net neutrality rules over internet service providers to uphold the internet’s openness and equal access. Without these rules, ISPs hold too much power over consumers, who have very few options for internet service. A strong likelihood if net neutrality rules are disbanded is that ISPs will divide the internet into two divisions: a high-speed lane for rich consumers, and a low-speed lane for everybody else. A lower-speed lane directly impedes low-income consumers access to the fast, comprehensive knowledge that the internet should provide to all.

Dividing the internet between the rich and the poor is as ridiculous and unnecessary as if one divided access to a library. It is extremely illiberal to withhold access to information simply because of one’s socioeconomic class. Furthermore, dividing the internet into a high-speed lane and a low-speed lane aggravates the current extreme polarity between socioeconomic classes that the United States already suffers from.

Without net neutrality rules, ISPs could stifle access to not just consumers, but also to smaller websites. If the FCC does not regulate them, ISPs could easily charge different websites and businesses for different loading times or different access. Moreover, if smaller businesses, like GoodLight or Codecademy, cannot afford to pay internet service providers, access to their websites is minimized, big companies stay big and small companies stay small. The internet’s potential for new ideas and innovation is ruined.

It’s crucial that these rules stay in place. They preserve what’s great about the internet: openness, equal access and innovation.