Partisan debate leads to net neutrality repeal
Volume IX Issue 4
Published February 2018
When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to revers net neutrality, the public viewed the act as the internet's death sentence.
​
Public outrage was enormous, and prominent political figures, companies, and states vowed to protect access to an open internet.
​
"After the repeal, I saw people being righteously angry about losing government laws that protect their internet," Patrick McDonough, a junior, said.
​
Despite the publicity, the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality is not new, and the FCC's adoption of net neutrality in 2015 was no revolution.
​
Partisan debate over how to regulate internet service providers (ISPs) dates back to the early 2000s, with Republicans favoring looser business regulation and Democrats favoring stricter business regulation.
​
Through each pivot in the government's stance, the impact on the majority of consumers has been negligible compared to the public's prediction of the internet's death.
​
Arjun Grewal, a junior, said, "It's important to realize that the community is treating this repeal as a huge issue, especially to the consumer, but the actuality is that the decisions these big ISPs make won't affect the consumer as much."
​
Five years after the internet opened to the public, President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act outlined federal regulation of telecommunications services, primarily cable television and phone service.
While most of the act is uncontested, Title II, which authorizes the FCC to regulate telecommunications service businesses, has proven to be controversial due to ambiguity concerning the classification of internet service.
​
As a telecommunications service, ISPs would be subject to the stronger FCC regulation — an idea supported by the Democrats, but as an informations service, ISPs fall under more relaxed Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations — a pro-business outcome favored by Republicans.
​
At the time the Telecommunications Act was passed, the internet was not the global network it is today, but the internet's growth in the early 2000s elicited challenges to the FCC's regulation.
​
Since then, Democrats and Republican have engaged in a tug-of-war over the internet's classification that has vacillated between rulings the entire 21st century.
​
In 2002, the FCC ruled the internet as an information service, a decision paralleling the Republican-dominated government at the time. In 2005, this ruling was reversed into the Democrats' favor after a Supreme Court case allowed the FCC to classify cable-based internet as a telecommunications service.
​
As new methods of internet service developed, the debate was rekindled, and in 2010, another Supreme Court case struck down the FCC's prohibition of discriminatory internet service. The adoption of net neutrality rules in 2015 reinstated and crystallized the FCC's authority over ISPs.
​
However, these net neutrality rules included a clause allowing the FCC to determine the lawfulness of each case under the authority given to the commission by Title II of the Telecommunications Act.
​
A report by the FCC said, "[all] charges, practices, classifications, and regulations that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful."
​
The FCC's power over ISPs given by this provision provoked a fear of federal intrusion and responses similar to the public's reaction to the net neutrality repeal today.
​
During both the adoption and rejection of the net neutrality rules, the FCC's decision favored the agenda of the dominating political party at the time.
​
"Whenever there is a big political issue, people tend to find solace with their party because it's hard to get re-elected if you follow your own agenda," Grewal said. "Party leaders make and agenda that their members follow, which is what happened in the net neutrality dilemma."
​
Ajit Pai, a member of the FCC, voted against net neutrality in 2015, losing the vote 3–2 to a Democrat majority.
​
"The internet is not broken; there is no problem to solve," Pai said.
​
Under the Trump administration, Pai was appointed as the FCC Chairman and facilitated the repeal in 2017. The FCC's vote on net neutrality fell on party lines, favoring Republicans.
​
​
Unfortunately, the issues surrounding net neutrality are often skewed by politics. Buzz-word statements from political leaders have reduced pubic knowledge of net neutrality to oversimplified, politically stigmatized concepts.
​
Stepping aside from political drama, both the Democrat's and Republican's arguments have merit, and both sides aim to protect consumers from ISP monopolies.
​
"Anyone who makes any decision sees something positive," said Grewal. "When the FCC decided to repeal net neutrality, they were considering something, but the way they proposed and marketed their decision didn't go over soundly with everybody."
​
Outside of politics, many ISPs have confirmed their commitment to net neutrality.
​
Comcast, the parent company for Xfinity — the primary ISP in California, said, "Comcast is committed to an Open Internet. We do not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content. We believe in full transparency in our customer policies. We are for sustainable and legally enforceable net neutrality protections for our customers."
​
With major ISPs being put under the spotlight by the FCC's repeal of net neutrality, it is unlikely that they will risk raising prices in fear of public backlash.
​
"Prices won't rise right away. People thought that right after the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality, they'd have to pay for YouTube videos, and while that is feasible, ISPs simply won't do that and risk their public reputation," Grewal said.
​
As many predicted after the FCC's voted, in addition to widespread disapproval, legal action challenging the FCC's decision has been made on state and national levels.
​
Attorneys General from 21 states and the District of Columbia have sued the FCC, specifically on the grounds of a corrupt decision-making process and the reasoning for the repeal.
​
On Jan. 28, the California state Senate approved the Senate Bill 460, sending it through to the State Assembly. The bill, proposed by Sen. Kevin de León, replaces the protections granted by the net neutrality rules and imposes some new regulations.
​
Grewal said, "At this point, with other, more pressing issues in out country, I don't think net neutrality is a focus, so I don't think the FCC's decision will be reversed anytime soon."
​
If any impact on the internet occurs, it is unlikely to be immediately after the net neutrality repeal.
​
"The changes won't be sudden price surges; they will be slow, insidious changes," McDonough said. "When net neutrality is repealed in practice, nothing will change at first, but over the years, we will see the internet change for the worst."
​
​