Press. voanews.com
The U.S. Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has hit the delete button on domestic rules
protecting net neutrality. The FCC voted 3-2 on Thursday to end the 2015 Open
Internet Order and enact the Restoring Internet Freedom initiative, which is
widely seen as giving internet service providers (ISPs) more power to
selectively limit internet access while favoring certain data streams.
In large part,
this is an internal battle within the United States over consumer choice and
how the internet will operate. Nonetheless, it also could have a significant
impact beyond America's borders, especially for those who routinely interact
with U.S.-based internet services in their daily or professional lives.
Though you may
not see the changes overnight, many critics say that, in the long run, internet
users around the world may not know what products or services they are missing
out on because of the rollback of net neutrality in the United States.
What is net
neutrality?
Coined in 2003
by Columbia University professor Tim Wu, the phrase "net neutrality"
refers to the principle that ISPs should treat all data provided to customers
equally and without restriction to block out competitors. In essence, it keeps
ISPs from choosing which data gets streamed at a faster rate and which websites
are blocked or throttled.
Net neutrality
was made official policy in 2015 through new FCC regulatory rules that treated
ISPs as a public utility following extensive industry and public debate.
Why does net
neutrality matter?
Net neutrality
is the law in more than 40 countries, including the United States and the
European Union. But with the shackles for U.S.-based ISPs off, equality in
cyberspace may disappear.
Companies or
individuals willing to pay more may get a freer, faster internet service, which
could lead to two classes of internet user: one rich in money and information,
the other poor in both.
“The ending of
net neutrality in the U.S. could be the beginning of the end of the open,
interoperable, free internet,” said Quinn McKew, deputy executive director of
ARTICLE 19 in the United Kingdom.
“It is now a
question of how much, not if, freedom of expression online will be undermined
around the world as a result of this shortsighted decision to enrich the
entrenched near-monopolies who control internet access in the United
States," McKew said.
For example, if
a company from the Balkans, Russia or Central Asia develops its own
video-streaming service, an ISP may slow its delivery because the provider has
a competing service of its own unless the company agrees to pay additional fees
to have its product streamed at higher rates.
And obviously
it’s not only about entertainment.
The Public
Library of Science (PLOS), a U.S.-based nonprofit open-access publisher and
advocate dedicated to progress in science and medicine through a transformation
in research communication, warned that allowing ISPs to sort traffic based on
content, sender and receiver, opens the door for corporate and government
censorship that would greatly hinder access to scientific information around
the globe.
"If you
want to promote any other culture in the U.S., and you start driving lots of
[internet] traffic through the U.S., and you have to go through these ISPs,
they can throttle you," according to Dwayne Winseck, a professor at
Carleton University in Ottawa and director of the Canadian Media Concentration
Research Project.
Or, as Andrew
McDiarmid, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Democracy and Technology,
put it: “I think it’s a case that the U.S. remains a model for internet policy
for the world. Not having it here may make it less likely to have it in other
places.”
Could
dismantling it affect human rights?
As with many things,
the United States is seen as a global leader on the internet. Thus, many
critics fear that a loosening of its regulatory system may embolden others to
crack down on a completely open internet.
Estelle Masse,
senior policy analyst at Access Now, a digital-rights advocacy group, said the
repeal of net neutrality rules would make the U.S. “an outlier on an issue of
critical importance to the future of the internet, both as an engine for
innovation and a platform for human rights, to the detriment of users.”
Some critics say
the erosion of net neutrality in world leaders such as the United States could
prevent events such as the 2010 Arab Spring, when social media played an
integral part in the movement to overthrow oppressive regimes.
“Americans
aren’t the only ones who would be harmed by a U.S. decision to repeal net
neutrality rules,” Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the Center for Human
Rights in Iran, said in response to the move to end net neutrality.
He says that as
the most economically advanced country in the world, such a move by the United
States could give the green light to repressive countries like Iran to continue
applying the same policies.
“The internet is
the most valuable invention of the 20th century, and we should all be fighting
to keep it free. As the birthplace of the internet, the U.S. should be carrying
the torch on net neutrality, not following in the footsteps of autocrats,” he said.
Could there be
any benefits for foreign countries?
One of the
arguments for rolling back net neutrality is that it hindered investment and
innovation that threatened to harm the internet’s continued ability to grow and
evolve to meet consumers’ needs.
The ruling could
end up being a boon to innovators outside the United States if American
entrepreneurs find they are at a disadvantage because large companies are
spending heavily to dominate fast-lane internet access.
Jennifer Yeh, a
policy counsel at Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group that
advocates for an open internet, noted that while the decision may limit supply
of new content and developments for users outside the United States, it could
push innovators to leave “for better opportunities elsewhere."
To that end, it
appears as though some are ready to pounce on the opportunity.
“Maybe I shd
[should] invite newly disadvantaged US startups to EU, so they have a fair
chance,” tweeted Neelie Kroes, the European Union's commissioner for the
digital agenda, during the debate in the United States on ending net
neutrality.
https://www.voanews.com/a/united-states-internet-neutrality-explainer/4167134.html