Why you should care about Net Neutrality?  

Thursday 04 January 2018

Cogs and gears are moving in the US as part of a process that could make the internet less ‘free’ to use – in more ways than one. So why should we care?

In his latest column, tech guru Rory Steel explains the implications...

What is Net Neutrality? In short, it is a way of stopping internet service providers from making extra money from you unfairly.

Less cynically, the providers of your home internet have to treat all websites fairly. Whether you’re a multi-million company like Netflix or the smallest of start-ups, Net Neutrality means that both websites will load on your device in the same (free) way. But recently, the US Republican Party has voted to repeal this – something Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have long been lobbying for.

But why? 

Firstly, to access customers’ browsing habits. While big companies like Google and Facebook have been accruing users’ personal information, ISPs have been banned from doing so. You can simply choose not to use Google or Facebook, whereas in America some areas do not have a choice in their internet provider as we do here. Analysing your browsing habits to better target advertising, and inform companies of your preferences arguably helps companies provide better, more relevant services (and importantly makes them more money), but at what cost?

Pictured: The reversal of Net Neutrality could compromise the privacy of user data.

Searching or posting on Facebook about a family member’s cancer struggle could be used to work out that your family history means you are potentially more likely to be affected. That information could then be passed on – for a fee – to medical insurance companies.

Data collection is a minefield I’m not going to get into here, but something society seems to have accepted as part of ‘free’ internet. We may well regret this in 20 years. For the context of Net Neutrality, the ISPs are just arguing for a level playing field against the internet giants. 

The effects of the second reason are potentially going to be seen quicker. 

Free speech has been a guiding principle of the internet since its inception. Net Neutrality was born from this ideal and laws across the world (but not everywhere) protect this. Now, it seems likely that once the FCC (Federal Communications Commision) reverses this in the US. ISPs will be able to decide if certain services like Netflix have an advantage over another competitor. This could be seen in the form of a faster ‘super highway’ for the companies able to pay for it. This could kill off disruptive technologies and the little start-ups with big ideas but small budgets. 

ISPs say they will not do this, but there will be nothing to stop them in future. Even if they don’t make it as obvious as a faster connection for the large companies, they may decide that Netflix doesn’t count towards your monthly data usage on your smartphone or home devices, while accessing smaller sites does. It will not help small businesses, despite what Trump professes. 

Pictured: US President Donald Trump says that repealing Net Neutrality won't do any harm to small businesses, but columnist Rory Steel disagrees.

Watching US politics unfold over the last year has been like watching a bad sitcom. So while Net Neutrality is being reversed across the water, Europe is keeping it. With Brexit looming, it would be surprising if the UK adopted the same policy.

So why I am concerned? If companies in America are forced by their ISPs to ‘pay to play’, we know this cost would inevitably be passed to consumers – even those outside the US. Worryingly, if this model is seen to help big businesses make larger profits and perceived to help the economy (despite killing innovation), it’s possible we could see these principles trickle down to Europe. So while it might not affect us immediately, the ripples of change and increased costs will be felt sooner rather than later.  

The change could also give larger ISPs in America the ability to filter news. Small media outlets that represent minorities – religious, ethnic, LGBTQ+ or otherwise – could have their fight against discrimination hindered. Again, ISPs say they won’t do this, but then why have they spent the last decade fighting to get to this point? I strangely hope the motivation is simply financial rather than political, but the two are rarely mutually exclusive. 

In extreme cases around the world, places like China have ‘The Great Firewall’ - a means of controlling the information its citizens receive, blocking non-sanctioned news and services. This extreme form of censorship is not where I think the reversal of Net Neutrality will take America, but it can legalise the ‘prioritisation’ of certain information. We have seen how manipulation of ‘news’ via Facebook has influenced the US Presidential election and I’m sure Trump has been told how this could fix his ‘Fake News’ situation. Is it too far a stretch to believe the White House could demand the ISPs to restrict news sites like Trump’s nemesis, the “failing” New York Times? 

Pictured: First stop - reversing Net Neutrality, next stop - a justification for 'fake news'?

While the first battle against Net Neutrality has been won, the war continues. Some European economists are less concerned and believe that if America makes it too hard for new start-ups, we’ll see that talent and entrepreneurialism migrate here instead. I hope so, but the US market is a huge online consumer that no self-respecting online service can ignore. 

I’ll continue to watch with interest. Now you know your Netflix bill could increase, it might make you read on next time you see ‘Net Neutrality’ pop up on your Facebook feed. Perhaps the reason Facebook allowed it to ‘pop up’ should concern you even more…