Changing Viewpoint Of Net Neutrality By The Federal Communications Commission

Net neutrality involves Internet service providers (ISPs) treating all data and traffic on the Internet on an equal basis (Collins, 2018). ISPs should not deliberately block or throttle specific material (Finley, 2018), including access to sites taking up too much bandwidth (Hio, 2017). They should not favor their own service (Reardon, 2018) or offer faster access to data from corporations ready to pay extra to reach users more rapidly (Finley, 2018). Users should also not be charged more to access certain websites (Hio, 2017).

Under the leadership of Obama, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented a net neutrality policy in 2015, which forbade blocking, slowing down, and prioritizing data from companies that pay more (Reardon, 2018), amidst worries that ISPs’ inclination to limit emerging technology would impede innovation in the long term (Finley, 2018). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was renounced its authority over ISPs and ISPs were reclassified as Title II carriers of the Communications Act, giving the FCC more authority to manage ISPs (Collins, 2018). The rule aims to sustain competition and incentivize ISPs to innovate, offering an equal chance for future entrepreneurs to succeed. An easily accessible internet also provides a platform that promotes investment in digital infrastructure and services. With a free and open Internet, users can reap the social and economic benefits of the Internet (Obama, 2016).

Management of the FCC changed following the 2016 election. On 14 Dec 2017, the FCC, led by Ajit Pai, its new chairman who was selected by President Trump (Finley, 2018), voted to repeal the 2015 net neutrality regulations (Reardon, 2018) as it restrained ISPs from improving their network infrastructure, adopting new business models and investing in new technology, thereby hindering innovation (Collins, 2018). Pai argued that greater investment in the digital infrastructure creates employment, drives competition, and provides improved and more affordable Internet access, benefitting users (White, 2017). He also pointed out that in the free market before the regulation in 2015, ISPs were not involved in any behavior that went against the policy. The United States (US) is moving from preventive regulation, which assumes that all ISPs are monopolistic, to targeted enforcement based on anti-competitive behavior and market failure. He argued that the repeal was also beneficial for consumers because it reinstated the FTC’s power over ISPs (Collins, 2018). Subsequently, the repeal was successful in June 2018 (Reardon, 2018).

Today, there are no constraints on ISPs limiting Internet access or favoring specific sites (Reardon, 2018). Nevertheless, ISPs are required to release data about their network management practices (Finley, 2018). While FTC can take action against enterprises that breach contracts with users or are involved in anti-competitive and illegal activities (Reardon, 2018), its enforcement extends only to violations under prevailing fair competition laws. For instance, blocking a competitor constitutes an anti-trust breach but giving preferential treatment to companies that pay extra might not be (Finley, 2018).

Singapore’s Viewpoint on Net Neutrality

Singapore maintains its position on the issue of net neutrality, with no plans to revise its policy approach (IDA, 2010). To maximize the benefits of the Internet, ISPs cannot block content that is lawful under local legislation and regulations and engage in practices that render content inaccessible or unusable (Hio, 2017). However, Singapore does not prohibit bandwidth throttling. ISPs can slow access to some websites, without causing them to be unusable (Hio, 2017). Singapore adopts a three-pronged policy approach towards net neutrality, facilitating market competition, providing flexibility for ISPs to differentiate their business models, products, and services while protecting consumer interests (IDA, 2011).

The first prong aims to facilitate competition among the ISPs by promoting compliance with the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore’s (IDA) Telecom Competition Code (TCC). Competition discourages ISPs from discriminating against certain content, curtailing consumer choice (IDA, 2011). The second prong emphasizes improving information transparency. To inform consumers of the alternatives in the market and help them make an informed decision when selecting an Internet broadband plan, IDA publishes “A Guide to Residential Broadband in Singapore”, comparing the price and performance of broadband services. ISPs delivering fixed-line Internet access services to residential users are also obliged to publish information on their network management practices (IDA, 2011). The last prong seeks to safeguard consumer interests and ensure users enjoy smooth Internet traffic via IDA’s Quality of Service (QoS) requirements on network accessibility and response for Internet broadband services (IDA, 2011). This ensures that ISPs do not degrade the quality of Internet access services to lower price and cost, to stay ahead of the market competition (IDA, 2010). ISPs also have the flexibility to manage their network and offer personalized plans that meet IDA’s fair competition rules, information transparency, and QoS requirements to differentiate themselves from competitors (IDA, 2011).

Singapore’s stance on the issue is similar to that of the US. There is no prohibition against throttling or paid prioritization, provided they do not harm competition or users' interests. ISPs can also offer customized zero-rating plans where certain services do not count towards a monthly data cap, a practice also found in the US. The US FTC enforcing anti-trust laws is also similar to Info-communications Media Development of Singapore’s (IMDA) fair competition guidelines (Hio, 2017). However, unlike in the US, throttling is acceptable only under certain scenarios in Singapore. Throttling may be employed to manage online traffic, to slow down heavy users who dominate excessive bandwidth, causing other users to experience slowdowns, but throttling to the extent that users cannot access websites is prohibited. As bandwidth is not a major issue here, Singapore can manage data demands without having to throttle one service to facilitate another, unlike in the US where parts of the country lack mobile data coverage. ISPs also cannot block legitimate Internet content (Hio, 2017).

Personal View on Net Neutrality

To reap the benefits of the Internet and maximize its potential, we should adopt a balanced approach to regulating the Internet, leaving the industry to market forces and intervening only when necessary.

Proponents of net neutrality argue that discrimination of Internet traffic by ISPs limits consumer choice and impedes innovation. They fear that without regulations, ISPs may be enticed to block, degrade or impose charges for consumer choice (IDA, 2010). For example, ISPs may begin selling Internet bundles, where accessing certain sites require paying for a premium package. Furthermore, industry giants and affluent households, with their ability to pay more, maybe given preferential treatment, while those who are unable to afford priority treatment suffer from slower Internet access (Collins, 2018). This could leave small businesses and start-ups on an unfair playing field with their services loading more slowly (Collins, 2018) and thus never have the chance to grow (Finley, 2018).

However, an easily accessible Internet did not improve the speed and stability of Internet access or make the Internet more secure. Better security is contingent on enhancement in technology and guidelines. It has also not increased the affordability of networks as an expensive investment in the digital infrastructure is required to manage minor technical problems such as brief instances of network congestion (Bennett, 2017).

In contrast, opponents claim that keeping the Internet a level playing field is essential for innovation (Finley, 2018). Allowing ISPs to optimize the use of their network resources and charge businesses for using their networks to reach users enables them to recoup the cost of developing their network, supporting future investments and deployment of network infrastructure (IDA, 2010).

Although users should be able to navigate all appropriate content online to be well-informed, flexibility to develop new business models to manage their network and differentiate their services is crucial in encouraging investment and innovation. This facilitates competition, benefitting users as ISPs provide services that better cater to market demand, and users can choose from a wider variety of network services for one that best fits their needs. Companies also benefit from the increased economic efficiencies. In a competitive market, anti-competitive practices will not harm consumer interests as consumers can choose among different ISPs for a suitable one (IDA, 2010). Competitive market forces will, therefore, encourage ISPs to innovate and diversify their services to meet the diverse needs of Internet users.

Prioritization measures are necessary to ensure an acceptable quality for all users, especially in times of high traffic load as heavy users may dominate the bandwidth and degrade the experience of other users. Prioritized services also give consumers the choice of purchasing only the level of service needed.

Enforcing net neutrality cannot resolve the present issues that plague the Internet, including the sluggish rate of innovation, the efficient use of resources, privacy, and security. The liberty to deviate from tradition helps developers improve the network (Bennett, 2017). Hence, for the sector to flourish, net neutrality should largely be left to market forces with some regulation to protect the consumer and corporate interests.