Lynne Holt and Mary Galligan: Net neutrality debate raises questions of trust

Thursday
Jan 4, 2018 at 2:00 AM

By Lynne Holtand Mary Galligan Special to The Sun

On Dec. 14, the Federal Communications Commission voted on a previously issued order repealing rules regulating Internet service providers (ISPs) as utilities. ISPs such as AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and others are the final links between consumers and content providers in the network that forms the Internet.

Those repealed rules, commonly referred to as “net neutrality,” prohibited companies from engaging in the practices of blocking websites or applications, slowing transmission based on content and giving content providers preferences for speedier transmission if they paid a premium for it. Broadly, those rules envisioned ISPs as neutral connections between content providers and consumers, like an interstate electric transmission line.

Supporters of the repeal considered the rules to be too heavy-handed, contending the rules hampered competition and innovation and provided protections to consumers without any evidence to support the need for such protections. Prior to the adoption of net neutrality rules, the services provided by broadband service providers were considered “information services” that were regulated by the Federal Trade Commission — the regulator authorized to handle antitrust complaints. The FCC's Dec. 14 decision returns broadband services to FTC regulation.

The vote to repeal the rules was split, 3-2, with Republicans voting for repeal and the two Democrats voting against repeal. The vote reflected the same partisanship and polarization seen in many recent policy decisions.

At the heart of the net neutrality debate is the extent to which Americans see inclusivity and closing the gap between “haves” and “have-nots” as a necessary part of the policy.

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress promoted the spread of modern telecommunications infrastructure when the Internet was rapidly evolving. Congress decided that universal access to the Internet was an important societal goal and acted to close the gap between those who had access and those who lacked it

The act created the federal universal service fund which subsidizes the cost of Internet access in unserved and underserved areas, and provides support for broadband and voice services to low-income households, schools and libraries (E-rate program) and rural health care facilities. The 1996 act built upon a long-standing practice of subsidizing communications services to unserved and underserved areas and low-income households by expanding the policy to cover broadband as well as traditional telephone. The act received bipartisan support in Congress and was signed by President Bill Clinton.

Innovation and greater competition, spurred by allowing ISPs to pick and choose among content providers and consumers through differential pricing mechanisms, are FCC-expected outcomes of repeal of the net neutrality rule. Whether intentional or inadvertent, large policy changes create new winners and losers. In the net neutrality repeal, one concern is that the losers will be those with the least money and power and those who live in areas of the country where there are few or no choices for an ISP.

The U.S., like much of the world, relies increasingly on the Internet to distribute and access all sorts of government, medical and business services as well as education and training. In the future, online registration and voting may reshape our nation's civic engagement. So, can we and should we embrace a digitalization vision that includes non-discriminatory access to the distribution technology underlying those digitized services? If so, whom should consumers trust to ensure services and content are provided in a nondiscriminatory manner?

The last question is not rhetorical because trust is unfortunately in short supply in the U.S. If anything, the level of trust in institutions of all types has declined as the country has become more polarized. As a result, there is no consensus regarding which institutions deserve wide-spread trust. Supporters of net neutrality trust the FCC to oversee and protect nondiscriminatory access to robust Internet service and have less faith in the ISPs to maintain open and affordable Internet access. Opponents of net neutrality trust the ISPs to provide more options for access to digitized content.

As we look to the New Year, what is our shared vision for a digitalized America and can we come together to realize that vision, much as we did in 1996? The two perspectives on net neutrality may reflect a divergence of visions among policy makers as much as a difference in chosen means of achieving the desired outcome.

Lynne Holt and Mary Galligan are senior fellows at the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida.

Thursday
Jan 4, 2018 at 2:00 AM

By Lynne Holtand Mary Galligan Special to The Sun

On Dec. 14, the Federal Communications Commission voted on a previously issued order repealing rules regulating Internet service providers (ISPs) as utilities. ISPs such as AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and others are the final links between consumers and content providers in the network that forms the Internet.

Those repealed rules, commonly referred to as “net neutrality,” prohibited companies from engaging in the practices of blocking websites or applications, slowing transmission based on content and giving content providers preferences for speedier transmission if they paid a premium for it. Broadly, those rules envisioned ISPs as neutral connections between content providers and consumers, like an interstate electric transmission line.

Supporters of the repeal considered the rules to be too heavy-handed, contending the rules hampered competition and innovation and provided protections to consumers without any evidence to support the need for such protections. Prior to the adoption of net neutrality rules, the services provided by broadband service providers were considered “information services” that were regulated by the Federal Trade Commission — the regulator authorized to handle antitrust complaints. The FCC's Dec. 14 decision returns broadband services to FTC regulation.

The vote to repeal the rules was split, 3-2, with Republicans voting for repeal and the two Democrats voting against repeal. The vote reflected the same partisanship and polarization seen in many recent policy decisions.

At the heart of the net neutrality debate is the extent to which Americans see inclusivity and closing the gap between “haves” and “have-nots” as a necessary part of the policy.

In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress promoted the spread of modern telecommunications infrastructure when the Internet was rapidly evolving. Congress decided that universal access to the Internet was an important societal goal and acted to close the gap between those who had access and those who lacked it

The act created the federal universal service fund which subsidizes the cost of Internet access in unserved and underserved areas, and provides support for broadband and voice services to low-income households, schools and libraries (E-rate program) and rural health care facilities. The 1996 act built upon a long-standing practice of subsidizing communications services to unserved and underserved areas and low-income households by expanding the policy to cover broadband as well as traditional telephone. The act received bipartisan support in Congress and was signed by President Bill Clinton.

Innovation and greater competition, spurred by allowing ISPs to pick and choose among content providers and consumers through differential pricing mechanisms, are FCC-expected outcomes of repeal of the net neutrality rule. Whether intentional or inadvertent, large policy changes create new winners and losers. In the net neutrality repeal, one concern is that the losers will be those with the least money and power and those who live in areas of the country where there are few or no choices for an ISP.

The U.S., like much of the world, relies increasingly on the Internet to distribute and access all sorts of government, medical and business services as well as education and training. In the future, online registration and voting may reshape our nation's civic engagement. So, can we and should we embrace a digitalization vision that includes non-discriminatory access to the distribution technology underlying those digitized services? If so, whom should consumers trust to ensure services and content are provided in a nondiscriminatory manner?

The last question is not rhetorical because trust is unfortunately in short supply in the U.S. If anything, the level of trust in institutions of all types has declined as the country has become more polarized. As a result, there is no consensus regarding which institutions deserve wide-spread trust. Supporters of net neutrality trust the FCC to oversee and protect nondiscriminatory access to robust Internet service and have less faith in the ISPs to maintain open and affordable Internet access. Opponents of net neutrality trust the ISPs to provide more options for access to digitized content.

As we look to the New Year, what is our shared vision for a digitalized America and can we come together to realize that vision, much as we did in 1996? The two perspectives on net neutrality may reflect a divergence of visions among policy makers as much as a difference in chosen means of achieving the desired outcome.

Lynne Holt and Mary Galligan are senior fellows at the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida.

Choose the plan that’s right for you. Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Learn More