8 Things That Could Happen Without Online Independence

The net independence argument is playing out like a broken history, except this time, the melody is your entry to a rapid and equitable web. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the enormous rules that were first implemented in 2015 less than a year after the . For its part, the Trump presidency is unlikely to intervene, with receiving FCC head Brendan Carr, a former communications lawyer, advocating for the move as a

Advertisement

Before discussing the relevance of the 6th Circuit Court’s ruling, come ensure we operate off the same meanings. Net neutrality refers to the phrase “essential company” as the FCC once characterized it ( in a web page that the current administration has since removed ). Consider, for simplicity, protecting users ‘ access to the internet, the “openness” of the internet ( all websites can be accessed and hosted equally ), and the security and availability of the connections.

The ruling returns the United States to a system of scattered privileges with little to no unity, forming a sort-of Swiss cheese of world rules. Only four states have passed thorough regulations, compared to at least 35 states that have passed net neutrality policy. Moving forward, this project has a shaky surroundings because changing needs could only make an already growing gap in internet access. What might happen now that programs to recover online independence appear dead in the water? This examine the possible repercussions.

Advertisement

Customer liberty is directly impacted by net neutrality, which enables ISPs to use a variety of tactics to control internet traffic. An example of “blocking” is when an ISP blocks entry to a specific site or service. Over the past 20 years, big American ISPs like AT&amp, T, Comcast, and Verizon have manipulated their systems to control customers ‘ access to competing websites and applications. Broadband service providers are also accused of influencing search engine results and directing online customers. &nbsp,

Advertisement

One example yet saw Telus&nbsp, — Canada’s second-largest telecommunication company at the time — blocking servers to tamper with labor protests. The court has allowed practices that undermine user trust and stop the internet from functioning as an empty resource because of the court’s failure to achieve net neutrality. Consumers may be able to rely on their ability to find the details they need without adjustment in a time when social disinformation is pervasive, AI deepfakes are on the rise, and the average citizen is more dependent on their internet connection than ever. And while, in isolation, some instances of blocking may appear trivial, the potential for abuse is daunting. &nbsp,

In this situation, it’s helpful to examine the historical context and consider the potential next steps. Does ISPs stop their people from seeking out their competition? How about preventing them from using sites that violate social or business objectives? In the end, blocking essentially asks us whether the computer is an open community resource or a commodity that can be controlled by those who provide it, like many other issues raised by net neutrality.

Advertisement

The terrible result of losing online neutrality is that it makes throttling legal. The easiest way to understand” throttling” is to think of it as similar to surge pricing, where an ISP reduces the quality of an internet connection ( or cuts it entirely ) until a user pays a premium. Despite ISPs ‘ claims that throttling is merely a means of reducing longitudinal congestion, a 2019 study from Northeastern University found that it was a widespread and common practice irrespective of traffic levels. &nbsp,

Advertisement

Comcast, the United States ‘ largest internet service provider, confirmed as much in 2014 when it rejected Netflix’s proposal to ease the burden of its traffic on Comcast’s systems by building content delivery networks ( CDNs ) free of charge. Otherwise, the ISP forced the viewer to give a pricey monthly charge for content delivery. Companies have a history of throttling even the most crucial public health services, so the process of slowing down your internet network is more than just a fear for download velocity. &nbsp,

For example, Verizon temporarily slowed down the Santa Clara Fire Department’s bandwidth to 1 / 1/ 00 of its regular frequencies while a forest fire was being battled. The fire department continued to throttle until it agreed to increase its obligations despite paying for unlimited data use. This example is a dangerous precedent of what a lack of regulations may take, posing a terrifying question: What happens when necessary resources can be held hostage for financial gain at critical moments? &nbsp,

Advertisement

Knowing that actually disaster response agencies are no longer exempt from the maneuverings of internet service providers paints a grim picture of the upcoming reliability of the resource in a state where California is reeling from traditional wildfires and states like North Carolina attempt to recover from Hurricane Helene.

Paid prioritization, where ISPs charge websites for faster, high-volume service, is another method to increase profits. In a vacuum, broadband providers ‘ logic for this service is sound, with websites that demand more resources ultimately paying for it. The “fast lanes” have significant effects that go beyond your streaming quality. &nbsp,

Advertisement

Functionally, internet bandwidth operates in a zero-sum environment: To increase the speed of one website, an ISP must proportionally decrease another’s, creating broadband gaps that enable large companies to literally speed by their less affluent competitors. An internet without net neutrality for smaller businesses is comparable to a gladiator fight where even the arena they are in a fight is rigged against them. Who ultimately pays the bill is another important aspect of paid prioritization. Unfortunately, the answer might be the consumer. &nbsp,

The streaming is an excellent illustration of this. Over the past year, streaming costs have risen for consumers, with companies like Netflix, Max, Peacock, Paramount, and Disney + all announcing price hikes despite seeing increased profits. And despite streamers shifting their focus away from profit margins and from subscription growth, they still pose a challenging question for consumers: What happens when a streamer’s profit margins drastically decline? &nbsp,

Advertisement

In that case, the recent court case has a much greater impact than many want to admit. Some experts believe Netflix could lose close to$ 1 billion as a result of the recent court ruling. Although Netflix’s 2025 budget is a whopping$ 18 billion, it will undoubtedly factor in when your favorite streaming service reviews its subscription costs, even though this may only account for a small portion of the overall costs for streamers.

The potential for a change in how ISPs manage customer data is an under-discussed outcome of losing net neutrality. As stated above, the court ruling overturns the stipulation that broadband providers are beholden to the” just and reasonable” rules of common carriers. This, in a nutshell, means that the federal government is no longer able to hold ISPs to the same legal standards as phone companies when it comes to tracking, storing, and using customer data. The FCC prohibited ISPs from using customer proprietary network information ( CPNI ) without their consent in accordance with net neutrality regulations. Without these regulations, the FCC loses much of its teeth in the fight to protect consumer data.

Advertisement

However, some critics pointed out that net neutrality laws also threatened user privacy by requiring ISPs to abide by federal surveillance laws like CALEA, ECPA, and FISA. These restrictions, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center ( EPIC ), not only facilitated unjustified government surveillance, but also put a risk on the security of broadband networks by requiring backdoors that could have exposed users to nefarious actors.

This juxtaposition paints a complex picture of the future of consumer data. ISPs and regulators must address these issues by working together to protect citizens ‘ proprietary information at all costs in a time when data is more valuable than ever. Unfortunately, as you’ll see below, the net neutrality regulations ‘ repeal may make the situation more complicated than it is resolved.

Advertisement

Regulations ‘ ability to address cybersecurity issues is diminished by the dissolution of net neutrality. For one thing, the FCC relied on net neutrality’s security, maintenance, disaster preparedness, and information-sharing standards to make sure broadband providers accurately identified and resolved internet security breaches and outages. It also gave federal regulators more power to assist broadband providers in recovering from natural disasters. This does not mean that a disaster response will be predicted by losing net neutrality, but it does mean that one of the main channels for cooperation will be eliminated.

Advertisement

Some people contend that net neutrality causes more harm than good from a threat neutralization perspective because restrictions on tactics like throttling, blocking, and traffic prioritization prevent an ISP from being able to effectively combat cyberattacks. However, net neutrality advocates posit that gutting regulations enables ISPs to infringe upon their user’s security options. It’s not unreasonable to wonder if similar strategies could now be used to protect security tools like VPNs, proxies, and anti-malware software given their documented history of blocking customers ‘ access to competing products.

Another argument is that net neutrality prevented ISPs from knowingly exposing their customers to cyberattacks by manipulating the websites they visit. This is more common than you would think. In 2014, Comcast injected advertisements into 3.5 million websites that were accessible through its public hotspots, exploiting users through harmful practices like limiting cookies and user data submission, while also making these websites and their visitors vulnerable to hackers in the process.

Advertisement

Networks must be as secure as possible in an increasingly complicated cybersecurity landscape. Unfortunately, by curtailing net neutrality protections, the court may have limited the federal government’s ability to do so.

One consequence of the net neutrality ruling is that it reopens the debate over foreign broadband providers, with Chinese-owned ISPs taking center stage. The U.S. banned the social media platform TikTok earlier this year because of potential misuse of sensitive data, but the FCC used the same logic when it used its net neutrality powers to obstruct several Chinese telecom companies from offering broadband in the United States in April. According to Jessica Rosenworcel, then-FCC chair, the companies were” subject to exploitation, influence, and control by the Chinese government” and could be “forced to comply with Chinese government requests without sufficient legal procedures subject to independent judicial oversight.”

Advertisement

The hypothetical threat foreign broadband providers pose to the security of American internet infrastructure is obvious. ISPs play a significant role in preserving the security and privacy of American citizens because of the sheer volume of data that a broadband company processes, let alone its control over the quality of broadband connections. &nbsp,

While it remains to be seen if the disbanding of net neutrality results in the reinstatement of these companies, the possibility of foreign-owned broadband begs an important question: How will the U. S. government protect American’s internet connections from the undue influence of foreign governments, without its greatest tool to regulate them? Concerning Chinese-made smart devices like Wi-Fi routers, a similar issue is currently being raised.

Advertisement

These problems are the result of a consumer-centric industry that offers little choice. The biggest internet service providers currently dominate the broadband market by nature. According to a 2020 Institute for Local Self-Reliance study, 88.3 million Americans could only access broadband through a single internet provider. Nearly 50 million people in that category rely on one of the seven largest broadband providers. Even though this issue is especially acute in rural areas as a result of extreme infrastructural demands, even the most populous urban areas have failed to offer their residents more choices. In California, for example, 97.7 % of households get their broadband through one of just five major companies.

Advertisement

However, how does the elimination of net neutrality affect a consumer’s ability to make their own choices? ISPs can use anti-competitive practices without proper regulations to impose local monopolies, impose customer retention, and impose consumer choice restrictions. In a system where most consumers cannot easily jump to a competitor, there is little to hold ISPs accountable for their actions, and thus little incentive for the self-regulation free-market believers are calling for.

ISPs contend that removing net neutrality laws will result in higher availability and quality of broadband networks by promoting more investment and innovation. However, the evidence to support such a claim is at best doubtful. For instance, advocacy groups like the Internet Association and Free Press argue that both telecom patent applications ( a statistic commonly used to gauge “innovation” &nbsp, in a particular field ) and broadband spending actually increased once net neutrality entered the regulatory radar. Neutrality regulations, in addition to these investments, helped ensure the quality of these investments for its end-users.

Advertisement

As of right now, Americans are suffering from what is known as the broadband divide, a two-headed monster of affordable prices and limited access that has left millions of Americans without access to the internet. Predictably, this gap occurs along racial and economic divides, with minority and rural communities being overrepresented due to unfair practices, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of economic incentives for the ISPs who serve them.

Advertisement

Congress attempted to solve this issue when it approved approximately$ 90 billion in broadband expansion initiatives last year. However, by removing the FCC’s ability to stop discriminatory and anti-competitive practices, it is undoubtedly less likely than it was two months ago that these funds will be delivered to America’s most vulnerable populations. &nbsp,

By removing net neutrality protections, the U. S. is making the largest broadband investment in its history, while simultaneously removing the oversight necessary to ensure its equitable and nondiscriminatory deployment. Unfortunately, this presents a risk of leaving Americans with a situation they have grown to love: paying an outrageous bill for much of the same outcomes.

Advertisement