On Thursday, December 15, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to repeal the Open Internet Order, often referred to as “net neutrality.” This should be no less than a bombshell, as the Internet was originally conceived as a free and open platform, not governed by economic interests, where service providers are neutral as to the data packets flowing through their infrastructure. To solidify that notion, Obama administration rules prohibited internet service providers from discriminating between different websites or services based on whom they wish to promote for financial, ideological, or other reasons. But this net neutrality concept is now being reversed, and we should be thinking about it as no less than a regime change, leading us towards a dictatorial, and potentially not so safe, Internet.
This is not a moment to herald the passing of the Internet entirely. The Internet is still going to be a significant part of our daily lives. However, we are about to witness a true regime change of the Internet. With the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality, the United States, being the leader and proponent of a free and global Internet for at least two decades, is about to create a dictatorial Internet.
This significant Internet regime change could have two important implications, both less intuitive than the commonly discussed consumer-focused concerns. First, internet giants will further consolidate their power, thus increasing our dependence on their services. Subsequently, it could increase their susceptibility to foreign information operations, and potentially pressure them to increase censorship and restrictions on speech, stemming from this national security concern. Second, this will result in an Internet that is less global, encouraging authoritarian regimes to further restrict their own internet, for ideological and political ends.
Consolidation of Power and National Security
Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, YouTube, and Google, are already in control of a substantial portion of our content consumption, communication, and data hosting activities. It is already difficult for new players to successfully compete against these established Internet players. Without net neutrality, we are about to become even more dependent on these platforms, because they are the ones who will be able to afford more bandwidth and thus be able to block new players from competing under the same rules. This could lead to serious impediments to free speech, but more importantly – new speech and innovation.
But this particular problem goes even further. Consider the Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election of 2016. The reason why the Russians have been so successful in achieving their goal is due to our already existing dependence on these platforms. Facebook, Google, and Twitter recently came under fire for not acting on the Russian disinformation campaigns on their respective platforms that directly flows from their influence on large groups of people.
Consider this – the Russian disinformation and meddling campaigns took place when net neutrality was still the rule. Whereas repealing net neutrality will result in these Internet giants potentially consolidating their power, which would mean that even more Internet users would be dependent on their almost exclusive services and content, given the convenience of ISP prioritization allowed by the repeal. A post-net neutrality reality will amplify the effects of foreign governments who would attempt to interfere with U.S. internal affairs. Such a scenario could pressure these leading tech giants into censoring and limiting speech allegedly to protect national security interests, to prevent additional foreign meddling.
Such restriction would be in addition to the more intuitive adverse impact on speech with the repealing of net neutrality. This intuitive impact is due to the anticipated prioritization of certain platforms of speech, following the repeal of net neutrality, meaning that no speech will be created equal online. Thinking about the non-intuitive national security implications of the net neutrality repeal described in this section should raise the concern and opposition of other agencies and departments responsible for cybersecurity and national security.
Finally, FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, has previously claimed that net neutrality provides an excuse for authoritarian states to further isolate their Internet from the global grid. However, repealing net neutrality, and backing off from promoting the Internet as a global and free platform of ideas, will lead to the same. In fact, it will serve as a model for these regimes, whether for commercial or ideological reasons. The result is the same – certain portions of the Internet will be effectively censored.
“Balkanized” Internet
Balkanization of the Internet is a phenomenon that has been discussed over the years, particularly in the context of China, and its approach to Internet governance. The Chinese government has been consistently working on ensuring that the flow of information is heavily controlled, and that the Internet in China is regulated in line with ideological and economic interests. Other countries, like Brazil, have followed suit, particularly in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations. When certain governments are interventionist and paternalistic, the Internet varies from country to country, meaning that transnational communications and information exchanges could be significantly restricted.
With net neutrality about to become a thing of the past, the role of the U.S. as a champion of a free and global internet, where information is flowing across borders and free expression is a central aspect, is diminishing. This should alarm every single one of us, because there is potentially no equivalent leader to assume the role of the champion of a free and global Internet. In Canada, for example, recent Supreme Court decision could have far-reaching implications on the freedom of the Internet. The Court ruled that Google is under obligation to remove search results globally if they hold information pertaining to an ongoing patent infringement trial. Similarly, the European Court of Justice is considering whether EU’s right to be forgotten could apply to search results outside of EU borders. This shows that states are pushing for their conflicting Internet narratives, with potential global implications, while the U.S. is repealing its net neutrality principles, which would remove it from its role of leading the idea of a free and open internet across the globe. This gap in value-driven leadership could reshape the Internet for the decades to come, with voices to regulate and balkanize the Internet becoming louder throughout the world.
Centralizing the Decentralized
This transformation will change how we perceive the Internet, and how we go about our lives. At its beginning, the Internet was envisioned as a decentralized platform, where no single entity is in control of the Internet’s infrastructure. While that is still true, we are now entering an era where Internet is a decentralized centralized phenomenon, with internet service providers getting more power, effectively centralizing the content and services that are being promoted on the Internet.
The debate on net neutrality is not a U.S-specific topic. It transcends political borders, potentially reshaping the Internet not only in the U.S., but also abroad.