Hello. I'm Ryan Cook, and this is Civic Tech Chat, a podcast about the civic technology movement. We seek to harness the power technology has to improve the delivery of public services to people everywhere. Let's talk net neutrality. On this episode of Civic Tech Chat, we'll seek to break down and explore this complex topic. Net neutrality is part technical, part political, and considerably salient. But what is net neutrality? It's a term referring to a set of principles meant to guide the regulation of the flow of information on the Internet. The basic idea is that Internet service providers or ISP's should treat all data on the network equally without rent seeking for tiers of service. Given the internet's impact on our ability to work, entertain, and connect, it's easy to see how this has become a pointed topic of of discussion. Net neutrality has three main players, the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, ISP's like Comcast, Time Warner, and AT and T, and large scale data services providers along the lines of Google, Amazon, and Netflix. The latter two groups actively lobby congress and the FCC to better craft the legal landscape to their favor. But what does this mean for each of them? For ISPs, it's to avoid the burden of net neutrality rules altogether. Doing so would allow them the liberty of charging peering fees, covering data transmitted between larger networks. An example of where this has come to head would be the recent conflict between Comcast and level three over fees charged to transmit data from Netflix, a level three customer, to Comcast customers. Beyond that, ISPs would benefit by being able to sell tiered services to providers. In a net neutrality world, you as the consumer would pay for some amount of speed that in theory applies to all services. In this tiered model, content providers would be given the chance to pay more in order to get their content to you faster. Data service providers, on the other hand, seek to avoid paying larger fees to send content to consumers. From their perspective, this sort of behavior is rent seeking on the part of ISPs that would have a significant impact on their bottom line, as well as their ability to deliver services to their customers. Additionally, these providers would view this as the ISP's exercising a power to pick and choose winners. As we, the public, rely ever more on cloud based services for our personal and professional needs, this sort of spat will intensify. These needs mean a larger amount of data will need to be transmitted, which leads to a sort of natural conflict between these two parties. More recently, net neutrality has become a bit of a partisan issue, at least when it comes to lawmakers. Generally speaking, republican lawmakers have been against net neutrality rules, while democratic lawmakers have been for it. But why would this be the case? For republican lawmakers, there are two big reasons that I see on the surface. The first being an aversion to president Obama's embrace of the rules in the latter part of his tenure. That act may have influenced a bit of a partisan backlash. Second, might be a republican focus on the means of the FCC's 2016 rules as opposed to their ends. The rub for them seems to be the implication that those rules empower the FCC to regulate pricing. These powers in turn could also carry disclosure requirements that the Republicans would fear would apply to all ISPs regardless of their size. Democrats, on the other hand, appear focused on the ends. Their view on the topic would seem influenced more by a fear of ISP overreach than that of the FCC. To them removing the rules, we'll invite ISPs to act as gatekeepers for access to the Internet and its consumers, allowing those players to, again, pick winners and losers in other industries. So where do we, the public, stand on this issue? That's an interesting question. A University of Maryland poll taken in 2017 indicates that there's is strong support in the public for net neutrality rules. In their poll, 83 opposed repeal, including 75% of Republicans, 89% of Democrats, and 86% of Independents sampled. In that same poll, the group was presented with an argument for repeal as well. This included statements suggesting that ISPs should be able to provide cutting edge speeds for companies that want them, and that being unable to do so is causing The United States to lag behind in the development of the Internet. It went on to express that disclosure requirements would be sufficient to prevent ISP overreach. Fifty one percent of those samples found that argument unconvincing, including 41% of Republicans and 65% of Democrats. This poll isn't alone either. Another by Consumer Reports, also done in 2017, found that 57% of Americans support net neutrality rules. Now that we have an idea of what net neutrality is and where stakeholders stand on it, let's talk about where we are today. The FCC on June 11 repealed the rules that they had put into place in 2016. In response, states have taken actions of their own to mitigate the impact of the decision. Washington state was the first to pass legislation to this end on March 5. Other states including Montana and New York have had their governors issue executive orders. And beyond that, the attorneys general in 22 states have taken part in a case that's in the DC circuit with briefs that were submitted just yesterday. Their goal is a reinstatement of the twenty sixteen rules. They argue that the FCC repeal constitutes an arbitrary and capricious change due to the impact it could have on consumers. Additionally, they argue that the FCC order unlawfully preempts state and local regulation of broadband service. In the periphery of the court battle is the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. Among the other conversations around this point potential appointment, a thing that can be lost is an opinion penned by Kavanaugh that may be an indicator of where they stand on this issue. In the case telecom association v federal communications commission, which led to the FCC net neutrality rules being upheld, Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion. In this opinion, they argue two main points. The first, that the FCC does not have the authority to implement the change because it is a major change. And by that doctrine, it should require a statute, which would be congressional action. The second point being that the rules infringe upon the first amendment rights of ISPs. Now the second point is somewhat interesting as it would imply that the transmission of data from services to you and others is in itself an active speech. It's also important to note with that, that net neutrality rules don't specify what an ISP can transmit. It applies rules to how it transmits it. And this is where we currently stand with net neutrality. As you might have gathered, while the FCC has made its determination, the matter is far from settled. This is an issue of tremendous importance, as its conclusion may shape the very nature of the Internet. I've spent the majority of this episode communicating a relatively balanced take. But now that we're through that, I wanna address how this might impact our daily lives, and I'm going to inject a little opinion. The loss of net neutrality could have severe implications on power balance in this country, our ability to consume services per personal and professional use, and hurt innovation and growth in the tech sector, among others. Rent seeking on the part of ISPs would likely have marginal effects on established players like Google or Amazon. But for those just starting out, those scrappy small businesses trying to grow, they may well be unable to afford those fees. In an economy that already greatly favors entrenched incumbents, do we really need to grant further advantage? The big players of today were once the small disruptors. How might the world be different if those same companies never got off the ground? What small players out there might be snuffed out by peering fees or tiering? I'm of the opinion that Internet access is more or less a utility. The need for network communication is so entrenched in economic viability that we must seek access that's broad and fair. This should apply both for us consumers out here in our homes and in our workplaces, as well as for organizations producing content, tools, and services to support us there. Don't take it from me though. I ask that you take some time, do a bit of research, and if you agree with me, check out battleforthenet.com, which has a selection of organizations there fighting for it. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to a bit of information about net neutrality, and thank you for listening to Civic Tech Chat. You can follow us on Twitter using the handle at civic tech chat. Visit us on the web at civictech.chat, or subscribe to us for content updates wherever it is you download your podcasts.