T omorrow, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is set to vote on the Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet (SSOI) order to reclassify broadband networks as telecommunications. This would give the FCC vast regulatory power over the internet. FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has defended this move, saying, “The pandemic made clear that broadband is an essential service, that every one of us — no matter who we are or where we live — needs it to have a fair shot at success in the digital age.” Yet the data dictate that networks free of the heavy-handed net-neutrality rules have consistently outperformed their counterparts. If the FCC truly wants to prioritize a better and more accessible internet, it should reject net neutrality altogether.
The FCC classified broadband services as telecommunications in 2015 via the Open Internet Order (OIO), but this was revoked in early 2017. In the periods before and following this brief change, the internet did not suffer from the unreasonable predictions being spread online. Advocates of reclassifying the internet continue to make many misleading claims, which at best are unmanifested projections and, at worst, can be debunked entirely. Even the SSOI order’s new emphasis on national-security risks and privacy protection falls apart under the least bit of scrutiny.
If the end of the story were that net-neutrality rules were only a bandage for wounds not yet suffered, it wouldn’t be so bad. Critically, however, these rules have demonstrably negative effects on the broad health of our internet infrastructure. If, as Chairwoman Rosenworcel claims, the goal of the SSOI is to treat internet access as an essential service, we should see evidence of increased availability during the previous net-neutrality era.
The years under the OIO demonstrate the opposite. That period saw the only drops in broadband investment in non-recessionary years. Average prices in broadband speeds started to significantly decline only after the net-neutrality rules were repealed. Getting more people online seems to have no corollary relationship to the net-neutrality rules. If the goal of the FCC is to close the digital divide, its efforts would be best served elsewhere.
Net neutrality also creates very real threats to the modern way our online networks function. Since the original OIO, our technology needs and uses have expanded greatly. Some of the restrictions of net neutrality create awkward conflict in notable services that we rely on.
For instance, the 5G standard deployed by many broadband providers uses “network slicing,” a means by which different types of signals can be allocated to different services based on need. So industrial machinery relying on network connections can use a narrower band of 5G that prioritizes low latency for quick reactions, while a bulk network data-transfer system can use a high bandwidth with less demanding latency requirements.
Under the definitions of net neutrality, this type of prioritization could easily fall under discriminatory slowdown of some network services over others. When a company uses the full spectrum of 5G for nontraditional broadband services, this could violate net-neutrality rules against the arbitrary degrading of broadband services. These are just a few examples of a multitude of layers the new SSOI order could impose.
While requests for comprehensive exceptions regarding network slicing have been submitted, we can’t predict what kinds of future technologies could be stifled by these or similar rules from net neutrality. Even if there are pathways to navigate the regulatory framework, this just creates another barrier to entry for evolving tech. Requiring permission to innovate is just another way to discourage investment.
Having a strong, reliable network requires the kind of investment we’ve seen net neutrality scare off. If the aim is to provide an accessible, essential service, one of the most important aspects of accessibility is a stable infrastructure during times of increased usage and duress. The U.S. was able to navigate such a time of extreme use during the Covid-19 pandemic with flying colors. When internet usage was at an all-time high, the broadband and network systems held without issue. The same cannot be said for our neighbors in Europe, whose net-neutrality rules depressed investment to the degree that regulatory bodies rationed and throttled network usage from companies such as Netflix and YouTube in order to prevent internet collapse.
In nearly every measurable metric, from broadband outlay and usage numbers to the real-world contrast of the U.S. and Europe, it’s clear that net neutrality would have a dampening effect on internet access. Should the FCC adopt the SSOI, we can reasonably expect reduced investment in our networks, a chilling effect on innovative development, and less reliable systems under pressure. None of these help make the internet a better, more attainable service for all.