The Impact of Net Neutrality Repeal

The issue of a potential rollback on Net Neutrality laws has taken hold of the media in a way that other political decisions have failed to. The potential ramifications of a repeal bill are being debated by most major news networks; and to some extent this has spread into the public arena where social groups are becoming divided in their support and opposition.

But what are the key factors in the Net Neutrality debate? Who will be most impacted by changes in legislation? And what are the main players suggesting are the more likely outcomes?


The Background

Net neutrality or “network neutrality” is used to describe public policy and regulations regarding the administration of internet access from Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In essence, it is the debate about whether ISPs should be allowed to offer different internet services to different people, places, and organizations, and whether different types of data should be given preferential treatment.

Laws for protecting Net Neutrality exist in more than 30 countries around the world including most of the European Union nations. They are all administered differently but have the underlying factor in common that access to the internet is seen more as a public utility than a commodity that should be free-market regulated alone.

Although this may appear a modern issue, the first U.S. “carrier neutrality laws” were in Federal law by 1860, covering the transmission of telegraphs. It was originally used to facilitate better communications between east coast and west coast states. It was written, “…messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority.”


Today’s Debate

The debate happening today is whether the Net Neutrality laws in place (present form since just 2015), should be repealed and replaced with a model more similar to that of the European Union; which while not entirely allowing companies free range on providing service, insists that providers make the consumer fully aware of what speeds, limitations, restrictions and services they are signing up for.

Spearheading this rollback is the Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai who is putting his proposals forward to the rest of the Commission. His outlining of the “new deal” is a free-market based structure that he suggests will bring in a new era of digital communications:

"Working with my colleagues, I look forward to returning to the light-touch, market-based framework that unleashed the digital revolution and benefited consumers here and around the world.”

The opposition to Pai’s program comes from a wide-range of sectors including politicians, rights groups, and private internet based companies. The main argument for keeping Net Neutrality laws in place is touted as one of enabling all users to receive information freely and without interference or hindrance.


The FCC’s Argument

The FCC has presented several arguments in favor of repealing the Net Neutrality regulations, most of which are based on the premise that industries thrive when unfettered by government intrusion.

The most popular argument is that when former President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress decided to preserve free-market internet operations in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it led to the largest expansion in internet availability and usage ever seen. It is argued that over $1.5 trillion in investment flooded the market (due to lack of government interference) which created hundreds of thousands of jobs and many new companies dedicated to research and development. It is suggested by the FCC that a repeal would lead to a similar “digital revolution.”

Another common argument is that it is rural America that is most negatively impacted by the Title II regulations. More than 80% of small fixed-wireless companies found that they “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules; deregulation would allow them to be more competitive and provide better pricing structures to their customers.

Chairman Pai states that with the rollback of these rules, “Instead of being flyspecked by lawyers and bureaucrats, the internet would once again thrive under engineers and entrepreneurs.” He suggests that having ISP’s at the helm will lead to:

“…greater investment in digital infrastructure, which will create jobs, increase competition, and lead to better, faster, and cheaper internet access—especially in rural America.”


The Arguments against Rollback

Strong voices (mostly from the Democrat Party) have spoken out against the possibility of a rollback stressing that when companies are allowed to regulate themselves, it will be the consumer who suffers from discriminating business practices.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has made her thoughts on the matter very clear by releasing an open statement to the FCC. She argues that deregulation would strangle entrepreneurs and leave the majority of control in the hands of those with the largest amount of available funding.

She said: “The FCC’s moves to dismantle net neutrality will further stack the playing field in favor of the biggest bank account, chilling competition, hurting consumers and punishing entrepreneurs and small businesses.  Eight months after allowing internet service providers to sell Americans’ private browsing history and intimate personal information, the Administration is moving to destroy the openness and dynamism of the internet.”


One of the most influential voices in the debate is that of Jessie Rosenworcel, who is a Commissioner at the FCC, and as such has voting rights on what proposals are adopted or rejected. She argues passionately that ISP’s cannot be trusted to put the best interests of consumers first. Her official statement says that rollback, “ hands broadband providers the power to decide what voices to amplify, which sites we can visit, what connections we can make, and what communities we create. It throttles access, stalls opportunity, and censors content.”

Hawaiian Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has been an outspoken critic of Net Neutrality repeal. She has spoken widely and often on the subject, but her most common argument which she states on her election website is that, “Without net neutrality, ISPs will be able to throttle internet speeds, block content behind paywalls, and unfairly favor some content over others.”

Tulsi Gabbard has constantly advocated against all initiatives that threaten Net Neutrality and fair usage of internet.


Representative Tulsi Gabbard has continuously battled to maintain the net open and also make readily available to all. She has made a huge effort towards taking initiatives in co-sponsoring regulation and acts that bans multi-tiered prices contracts.

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has actually prompted that the Internet is a crucial service to encourage the best resources and innovators. As we all know, internet is actually a leveled field supplying information, knowledge and resources as well as opening up doors of opportunities for all.

Tulsi states that the Federal Communications Commission wishes to establish an Internet fast lane for the greatest prospective buyers, and also a less preferred lane for the low bidders. This sort of proposition will overmuch adversely impact our nation's ideal pioneers - that will actually benefit the selective section of the privileged only.

Supporting a reasonable plan, Tulsi Gabbard urges to safeguard net neutrality - yet as a group of fair supporters of net neutrality need to get in touch with Congress to stand with reasonable use as well as plan associating with internet provision regulation.

Tulsi Gabbard has been acting as pioneer in co-sponsoring the Online Competition and also Consumer Choice Act - obstructing the FCC from establishing an Internet tollbooth.

"We cannot allow the FCC to establish a system in which information flows to those with the most money. We need to support the innovators that fuel our economy and move this country forward."

- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) spoke up highly versus the FCC's current statement of strategies in support of Net neutrality.

Democrat House Representative Tulsi Gabbard has actually highly advocated net neutrality, as well as she has cosponsored regulations like H.R. 196, the Online Competition and also Consumer Choice Act of 2015, which would certainly forbid multi-tiered prices arrangements in between Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as well as material suppliers.

An exceptional leader Tulsi Gabbard is continually functioning as well as talking about ways to broaden web accessibility to even more individuals, not limit it to those that could manage to pay even more. The web is important to all and it is a cornerstone in facilitating education and learning, entrepreneurship, job searching, or even maintaining a work when you've been worked with. Much of individuals staying in my area, in country areas, those on Native American reservations, as well as in low-income locations throughout the nation do not have high-speed net.

Tulsi Gabbard further states about Net Neutrality –“It is our work to make certain that every person has the accessibility and also connection to thrive in our 21st-century economic climate. Increasing web gain access aids our economic climate expand, results in a public that is much better notified as well as enlightened, and also places us on the fast lane to technical developments that could make life far better for every person. It will certainly assist lead the battle to keep net neutrality as well as maintain the predacious techniques of ISPs away.


Who is Most Impacted by Rollback?

This question is at the crux of the debate. Both sides suggest that it is the same groups who will benefit from keeping Net Neutrality as will be hurt by it.

Critics of rollback suggest that it will be poorer communities within the U.S. that will be most impacted by ISPs being able to regulate the delivery of internet services. They specifically point to two key arguments. The first being that poorer people will not be able to “compete” for higher-priced service options that those in richer communities will be able to; thus creating a two-tier system that unfairly discriminates. The second area of effect would be public libraries and school services. Both of these institutions use the internet as valuable educational resources, yet operate within strictly controlled budgets. If a two-tier system were created, education centers would be forced to choose the lesser of the options.

Advocates of rollback suggest that the poorest communities in the U.S will be the long-term beneficiaries of less market regulation. They state that businesses will invest more of their profits into research and new technology because there will be a competitive market to win; therefore, prices will be driven down for consumers even as new developments are created.


Who Really Benefits

There are many good arguments on both sides of the debate. When the government interferes too much in any system or attempts to nationalize “utilities,” they are often plagued by ill-budgeting, mismanagement and poor service. On the other hand, markets that represent essential services that have zero regulation are quick to make mistakes that can lead to disruptions in service and inconvenience for the consumer.

The reality seems to be that if the rollback takes place in its current form that there will be short term disruptions and possible service discrimination for both inner city and rural areas, yet it is these same areas that will benefit in the long-term from competitive markets and updated investment in technology.

You can see more news and happening here: