Taking a moment to understand December 14’s net neutrality repeal

By Aalyia Shaukat, contributing writer

Despite appeals from over 22 million Americans — the majority of whom favored net neutrality — the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed the net neutrality rules established in 2015 wherein telecommunication companies were prohibited from the following:

●     Blocking: Internet service providers (ISPs) can block website/app content
●     Throttling: ISPs can slow the transmission of data based on the information presented on the webpage/app
●     Paid Prioritization: ISPs allow for certain content to transmit faster for an additional fee from the content provider

It should be noted that the repeal does require the ISPs to be transparent of any content blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. While the news did not come as a major surprise, there has already been some major kickbacks. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman came out with a statement to lead a multi-state lawsuit against the FCC on the grounds of the number of fake comments submitted on net neutrality. “My office investigated and found out that as many as 2 million public comments were submitted to the FCC using the identities of real people,” said Schneiderman on his Twitter page . Already, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is joining Schneiderman in the lawsuit while 18 other state attorneys general have petitioned the FCC to cooperate with this investigation.

Major broadband providers such as AT&T (15.7 million subscribers), Comcast (25.5 million subscribers), Verizon (7 million subscribers), and Charter (23.6 million subscribers) have a great deal to gain with this repeal. This is particularly true with the concept of paid prioritization, wherein ISPs can charge an additional fee for the faster transport of certain content. While many of these have promised to keep an “open internet” without blocking or throttling, some may not hold to the promise of not allowing for the preferential treatment of web traffic. For instance, Comcast deleted its “no paid prioritization” pledge from its net neutrality webpage precisely the same day of the repeal.

Charter’s CEO, Thomas Rutledge, expressed that the FCC’s plan would “spur investment in and the deployment of the next generation of broadband” ― following the same theme of FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s original argument that heavy control over ISPs could deter investment and innovation. AT&T supported the decision and attempted to reassure American broadband consumers that the “internet will continue to work tomorrow just as it always has .”

This is somewhat true being that the effects of the repeal are not likely to appear in the short-term. Even the Open Internet Order ruling in 2015  was voted on in February but didn’t take effect until four months later on June 12th. Furthermore, the flood of lawsuits is likely to lead to the courts issuing an injunction that would temporarily halt the order from taking effect. The discussion has even extended to Congress, where 26 senators have banded together thus far to push a Congressional Review Act in which Congress has 60 days to block the FCC’s decision and retain the Obama-era net neutrality rules. Still, it is likely that this decision is here to stay and, under paid prioritization, the extra cost for quicker content can very easily trickle down to the consumers in the form of higher monthly payments.

The overall effects of the repeal may be far-reaching, but the transparency that the FFC requires of ISPs combined with the careful scrutiny of many watchdog groups improves the likelihood that the ISPs will remain in check. Should any of the conglomerates overstep their bounds and dismiss the promise of an “open internet,” the resulting national alarm could affect shareholder perception and, therefore, the company’s market value.