Net Neutrality

If you use the internet, then this is relevant for you.

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is the idea that the internet should be a neutral forum, and therefore, Internet Service Providers (the company you pay to get internet) should “treat all data on the internet the same.” It means that when you pay for access to the internet, you have access to all websites. This is the state of the world in which we now live.

Defining terms:

• Internet Service Provider (ISP) – you pay this guy for internet every month (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, etc.)
• Internet Companies – For our purposes, this includes everyone who has a website: tech companies, retailers, news sources, airlines, etc.
• Users – people who use the internet. Like you.
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – the government organization in charge of communications.

How long has net neutrality been around?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of net neutrality back in 2005. It was formalized as a rule by the FCC ten years later in 2015. Lots of things happened in between. (full timeline here).

Specifically, the FCC’s 2015 rule classified ISPs as common carriers, which puts them in the same bucket as phone carriers. Just like your phone carrier can’t block you from calling Best Buy, your internet provider can’t block you from visiting BestBuy.com.

So what is happening right now?

The FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, has announced a plan that will reverse the 2015 rule on net neutrality. The FCC Chairman and four Commissioners will vote on this plan on December 14. Two commissioners in addition to Pai have stated that they intend to support the plan, giving them the majority vote.

Ajit’s rationale behind his decision (laid out here) is seen as flawed by Forbes and The Washington Post. News sources from both sides of the aisle agree that this can negatively affect consumers. The vast majority of Americans voicing their opinion to the FCC also agree.

When/if net neutrality is reversed, what could change?

(Specific example are illustrative, to make these scenarios concrete. They are not predictions of the future!)

1. ISPs block certain websites that are not in their best interest for you to see
   • You can imagine that Comcast could steer you toward purchasing their own xfinity streaming service by blocking or slowing Netflix.
2. ISPs charge users extra for websites they know you really want.
   • Imagine tiered pricing: pay an extra $10 a month to your internet provider for access to Facebook.
3. ISPs charge internet companies for access or speed
   • Imagine that Amazon has to pay Comcast in order to be included in Comcast’s basic internet package. This isn’t great news for Amazon, but is even worse news for the next generation of scrappy startups, trying to compete with cash-rich tech giants.

What arguments might support Pai’s plan to reverse net neutrality?

I deeply apologize for the one-sidedness of this post. I have looked into arguments in favor of Pai’s plan, but found them uncompelling. Here they are, along with my take on them.

• A free market is a good market. From a bare bones, economic perspective, a market unobstructed by undue regulation reaches an optimal equilibrium state. This logic is sound, but overlooks the very next chapter of any introductory econ class: cases in which a free market fails. The classic case is one where a monopoly or oligopoly (small number of monopolistic players) controls a market. If you had 30+ internet companies to choose from, the free market might be able to handle itself in a world without regulated net neutrality. But in our world where the majority of Americans have 2 or less options for internet providers, consumers do not often have the option to vote with their dollars, and the market is not functioning in equilibrium.
• The internet did not explode prior to the FCC’s ruling in 2015 and it won’t explode after that ruling is reversed. Net neutrality has actually been around in various forms for a while. The Supreme Court ruled on it in 2005, Comcast violated it in 2007, the FCC investigated Comcast in 2008, the FCC established high level rules around internet transparency in 2010, and so on. (timelines here and here) We have never lived in a world completely without net neutrality so we don’t know exactly what it might look like.
• The internet has always been censored by Google, Facebook, and others. Giving that power to ISPs isn’t any different. I think we all agree that the echo chamber that exists within social media is not something we want to facilitate more. Now imagine that instead of simply prioritizing search results, Google could actually block websites completely. Like, you type in “pbs.org” and it says “that website is not available.” That is the power that’s about to be handed to ISPs.
• Reversing net neutrality builds a fast lane in the internet. Yep, that’s true. In a world without net neutrality, [a news source you don’t trust] might pay top dollar to get their website to you lightning fast, while [your favorite news source] might choose not to invest and take a hit in online views. The question then becomes a philosophical one. Do we want to live in a world where the internet is a library of equally available information or a cable subscription where you get only what you choose to pay for?

Related topics you can research on your own:

• The FCC’s plans to partner with the FTC to “coordinate online consumer protection efforts” once the FCC reverses the ruling on net neutrality.
• A group of Senators has tried (thus far in vain) to convince the FCC to delay their vote in light of allegations that many of the 21 million comments allegedly submitted by citizens are duplicates (i.e. computer generated) or otherwise arouse suspicion.

Between now and December 14, the FCC is accepting public comment here which they say they’ll use to inform their vote. Just click +Express on the left hand side (more how-to instructions here),

DACA

What is DACA?

DACA is an Obama policy that allows those who entered this country illegally as a minor to receive a two-year deferral from deportation and eligibility for a work permit (subject to renewal after two years).

“Approximately 800,000 such young people (referred to as “Dreamers” after the DREAM Act) were enrolled in the program as of 2017… The program does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship, nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.” (Wiki) They may be eligible for some state-sponsored benefits, as well as federal Social Security and Medicare (at retirement age).

DACA was never written into law (i.e. it never passed a vote in the House and the Senate). Rather, it is a policy created by the Obama administration. (What’s the difference between policy and law? Here’s the short answer and the long answer.)

What are scholars and economists saying about DACA?

Many economists say DACA does not take jobs away from American citizens. Those who believe it does are using what economists call the lump of labor fallacy. A lot of people have opinions on the effect of immigration on our economy.

What has Trump actually said and done regarding DACA?

He has announced that DACA will be phased out in 6 months,  effectively putting a deadline on Congress coming up with a new solution for these “Dreamers” (i.e. actually write something into law).

What are the options in the next six months?

There are four bills in progress in Congress that could legislate DACA in one form or another.