In December 2017, the net neutrality regulation of the US was repealed. One year later, evaluations of the consequences show an immense bandwidth. Some find that the (American) internet did not change at all or even improve because of the legal change, citing spurious relationships such as increased internet speed rates (Moran 2018). Others see very concrete negative consequences, for example that the promises of ISPs about more network investment, lower prices and no negative traffic discrimination were not kept (Sohn 2018). And research conducted in 2018 using the app Wehe concluded that in their tests, “nearly every” US cellular ISP (internet service provider) throttles traffic, meaning setting a limit on the available bandwidth for at least one streaming video provider - before and after the repeal of the law took effect (Choffne 2019). So what can be inferred from the ‘natural experiment’ with net neutrality regulation in the US by first introducing and then negating it again?
On the one hand, the fact that the debates sparked primarily in the US at different points of time triggered similar actions in other parts of the world shows the importance of the question. As average citizens are usually not too well informed about or involved in the shaping of internet governance, the massive mobilization of civil society that led for example in the US (2014 and 2017), Brazil, the EU and India to thousands of contributions on public policy consultations is even more striking (Marsden 2017). With an ever increasing demand for more bandwidth and rising numbers of internet users especially in developing countries, not only the topic of net neutrality will become even more salient but users will come to realise this salience. On the other hand, the content of the debates and the number of countries without net neutrality measures in place (Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality 2018) shows relatively small progress since the beginning of the century. Reasons for that are the lack of empirical evidence for common claims or about the impact of introduced regulations as well as the missing link between economic, social, technological, political and human rights based arguments in the discussions (Marsden 2017). But one of the main reasons is probably lacking awareness among policymakers and national stakeholders how pressing the issue is. In the following I try to address those challenges by asking if and when there should be regulations on net neutrality.
Table of Contents
1. Who Would Win? The Internet or...
2. Neutrality Regulations For Every Netizen
2.1 Net Neutrality as a Safeguard for Human Rights in the Digital Age
2.2 Net Neutrality as Facilitating Force for the Online Public Sphere
2.3 Net Neutrality as an Economic Factor
2.2 Don’t Fix Something That Is Not Broken?
3. Evidence Based Policy is Needed
Research Objectives and Core Topics
This paper explores whether and under what conditions government regulations on net neutrality are necessary to preserve an open internet, while addressing the critical challenges of empirical evidence in internet governance.
- The impact of repealing net neutrality regulations on internet infrastructure and market dynamics.
- Net neutrality as a fundamental prerequisite for human rights, including freedom of expression and access to information.
- The role of the internet as an online public sphere and its implications for democratic engagement.
- Economic implications of net neutrality for competition, innovation, and network investment.
- Methodological challenges in measuring and monitoring net neutrality violations effectively.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2 Net Neutrality as Facilitating Force for the Online Public Sphere
Many have written about the role of the ‘liberation technology’ (Diamond 2010) internet in democratization and its general implications for democracy. But all these findings and the whole notion of the internet as many-to-many communication or Web 2.0 had to be questioned if in the long run, the ‘worst case scenario’ of net neutrality becomes true and everyone who does not pay for prioritization has to deal with blocking or throttling. With practices like blocking, throttling and prioritization in place, it would become easier to ‘buy influence’ and pursue more or less hidden political agendas in the online media environment and connected to that influence on voters. For example, foreign actors can seek to influence elections by getting political content prioritized while ISPs throttle or block access to content of national competitors. As the internet is a key information source for millions of citizens all over the world, net neutrality links directly with media pluralism and cultural diversity online, which are especially vital for democracies (Olmos 2013). Musiani and Löblich (2016) support the argument that in order to work, an (online) public sphere in the sense of Habermas (1989) has to represent the diversity of information, ideas, and opinions of citizens. Without net neutrality, this becomes more difficult (Bauer, Obar 2014).
In turn, if the online public sphere becomes constricted, that hurts the resilience of societies and the quality of democracy for example by discouraging civic engagement when at the same time realising collective action potential with the help of the internet becomes more salient. Activist usually do not have aligned interests with ISPs or the money to alleviate blocking/throttling but they are dependent on the internet (Hussain and Howard 2013, Ruijgrok 2017). If large ISPs and CAPs determine what end-users can access online at what price with blocking and throttling, citizens lack an open and cheap opportunity to educate themselves without discrimination. Net Neutrality is as cornerstone for media literacy as it is based on equality and diversity, especially in the context of zero rating. Media literacy is an important prerequisite to fully participate in political life and in democratic processes and becomes more salient with the emergence of new technologies like bots, the spread of misinformation and increasing mediatisation. Therefore it should be in the interest of every democracy to enforce net neutrality principles.
Summary of Chapters
1. Who Would Win? The Internet or...: This chapter introduces the current debate on net neutrality, focusing on the US repeal and the subsequent lack of empirical clarity regarding its impact on speed and competition.
2. Neutrality Regulations For Every Netizen: This section defines the core concepts of net neutrality and examines its role as a safeguard for human rights and a facilitator for a democratic online public sphere.
2.1 Net Neutrality as a Safeguard for Human Rights in the Digital Age: This section explores how net neutrality is intrinsically linked to the right to freedom of expression and information in the digital landscape.
2.2 Net Neutrality as Facilitating Force for the Online Public Sphere: This section analyzes how the absence of net neutrality could threaten the diversity and resilience of the democratic public sphere by allowing the "buying" of political influence.
2.3 Net Neutrality as an Economic Factor: This section evaluates the conflicting economic arguments regarding ISP innovation, market competition, and the necessity of paid prioritization.
2.2 Don’t Fix Something That Is Not Broken?: This section discusses the methodological challenges of monitoring net neutrality and argues against the assumption that current market self-regulation is sufficient.
3. Evidence Based Policy is Needed: This concluding section argues that future legislation should be flexible and grounded in objective, empirical research to effectively govern the fast-moving internet landscape.
Keywords
Net Neutrality, Internet Governance, Human Rights, Freedom of Expression, Online Public Sphere, ISPs, Competition, Innovation, Throttling, Prioritization, Zero Rating, Digital Policy, Media Literacy, Evidence-based Regulation, Telecommunications.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the debate surrounding net neutrality, questioning whether, when, and how governments should intervene to regulate internet traffic to protect democratic and economic values.
What are the central themes discussed in the text?
The core themes include the intersection of net neutrality with human rights, its function as a pillar for a democratic online public sphere, the economic impacts of traffic management, and the challenges of creating evidence-based policies.
What is the central research question?
The paper addresses the overarching question: "If and when should there be regulations on net neutrality?" in order to address the challenges posed by potential traffic discrimination.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a qualitative analysis of existing literature, policy reports, and case studies, such as the US regulatory repeal and international monitoring efforts by organizations like BEREC.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body explores the definition of net neutrality, its role as a safeguard for digital human rights, its impact on political discourse and media pluralism, and an analysis of economic arguments regarding ISP investment and market competition.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key concepts include Net Neutrality, Internet Governance, Human Rights, Freedom of Expression, Online Public Sphere, ISPs, and Evidence-based Regulation.
How does the author view the 'worst-case scenario' regarding political influence?
The author argues that without net neutrality, it becomes easier to "buy influence" through prioritization, potentially allowing foreign actors or corporations to manipulate political content and public opinion.
Why does the author argue that current complaint systems are insufficient?
The author notes that most end-users lack the technical knowledge to identify if they are victims of traffic discrimination, rendering complaint-based systems largely ineffective for enforcement.
What is the author's stance on the economic argument for paid prioritization?
The author concludes that the incentive for ISPs to invest in infrastructure through paid prioritization is weak and often masks a gatekeeper function that hampers competition and innovation for smaller providers.
- Citar trabajo
- Christin Rudolph (Autor), 2019, Network Neutrality. Can Regulation Save the Internet?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/465470
