Trump and the Future of Net Neutrality

The façade of the internet has shaped what matters the most these days, as it seems to be. Many have leaned on to the internet to extract ideas and information, and further translate them into more meaningful activities and ways. The utilization of internet has permeated so many ways, and in turn, has demanded further discourse on the imminent future of internet governance. This is where states play their roles, as government decides how internet in their states run. And recently, what the president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, brought up has once again dragged the talks of internet governance under the spotlight.

Just two days ago, Donald Trump had appointed two stalwart figures in internet governance, James Eisenach and Mike Jamison, to take charge on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) transition team. This decision only had sparked discussions, as both of these figures are also former lobbyists for Verizon and Sprint, respectively,[i] and have traces in delivering focal opposition against recent, and arguably most foundational policy FCC won, the net neutrality. [ii]

The debate over internet regulation and internet neutrality in particular has attracted attention in the US over the past decade. Internet neutrality, which can be translated into the treatment of equality to all data transmitted through the internet, was first coined by Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School Professor, more than 14 years ago.[iii] This also address the behaviors of internet providers, where no broadband companies can control the flow and speed of internet to their customers. This could be the gateway to the open internet era, where the internet is literally not limited and ‘monopolized’. The United States only came into compromise with the long and tiring contestation of net neutrality in June this year, where FCC was able to pass the regulation to protect net neutrality. This achievement, however, did not come with perils, as two years ago, the FCC was pretty much not in the position of passing the regulation, not until Americans were made aware of the issue by comedian John Oliver on his show, Last Week Tonight.[iv] The affirmative action initiated by FCC, and backed by Obama, was met with furious reaction from the internet providers industry, as they claimed to have found evidence on how detrimental the regulation might bring to the climate of competitiveness, as well as a possible stifle innovation and investment flows in the future as these companies might be reluctant to invest more. The reluctance from the broadband industry was generally driven by the fact that they are potentially losing a lot of revenue source as the regulation will; firstly, make cable companies offer alternatives to the set-top box, which many Americans pay hundreds of dollars every year to lease; secondly, expand subsidized mobile broadband internet in rural and tribal areas; thirdly, capping prices on the kinds of large data networks that serve hospitals, libraries and schools.[v]

The decision made by the FCC to forego with the bill and eventually pass it is intending to benefit the consumer, and highlight the initial goal of net neutrality; opening access and level up the playing field for everyone. The phenomenon of market dominance was highlighted by Tom Wheeler, the current chairman of the FCC, as he emphasized the existing duopoly in the telecommunication market in the US.[vi] This is also why the market leaders are trying so hard on shoving the idea of stifle innovation, as they believe that the market still relies on them and their reluctance will hugely impact the market in general. At this point, the decision taken by the US government is controversial, but indeed is for the sake of the common.

President-elect Trump began putting disruption in the long vision of net neutrality in the country by firstly appointing these two figures in his transition team. Their stance on net neutrality is clear, and the newly passed regulation may be rolled out very soon. This is showing how intervention from the business sector, particularly the industry leaders (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast) remains high and strong, and once again, the public is being sacrificed. The dominance of industry players will prevail, and the will be bestowed with authority to charge other smaller companies to promote their contents, and even manipulate internet streams.

The future of net neutrality is even worsened by Trump’s very latest announcement on planning to shut down FCC entirely, citing inefficiency and political interests penetrating the FCC ‘more than necessary’.[vii] Such holistic treatments to internet indeed require extra energy to regulate and oversee the very borderless and always-getting-bigger nature of the internet, especially when more and more infant industries bloom after taking advantage from this regulation. Moreover, clear incorporation of industry interests in political sphere is undoubtedly very murky political decision, and even worse, a political decision with abandonment of public’s interests. Trump’s limp leadership is proven to be even perturbing. If we look back at his official YouTube video posted recently, titled “A Message from President-Elect Donald J. Trump”, he promised to create an ethical revolution by blacklisting former executives from lobbying activities in the House, in order for the White House to ‘cleanse’ itself from external interests. However, involving lobbyists in his transition team is, or should have been, a political suicide, infiltrating certain parties’ interests since the very first beginning; at the expense of net neutrality.

It seems like we have to witness shaky political moves from the greatest nation in the world for even longer now. Digital world may be affected heavily in the future, with net neutrality being the first victim.  

picture credit: pexels.com

[i] April Glaser, ‘Trump’s New telecom Advisers are a good sign for the AT&T and Time Warner Deal, Despite His Threats against the Merger’, Recode, 21 November 2016, accessed from <http://www.recode.net/2016/11/21/13700452/trump-att-time-warner-merger-antitrust-regulation-fcc>

[ii] Shelby Carpenter, ‘Trump Appoints Two Anti Net Neutrality Advocates to Oversee FC Transition’, Forbes, 21 November 2016, accessed from <http://www.forbes.com/sites/shelbycarpenter/2016/11/21/trump-appoints-anti-net-neutrality-fcc-transition/#14245fa33e14>

[iii] Tim Wu, ‘A Proposal for Network Neutrality’, downloaded from <http://www.timwu.org/OriginalNNProposal.pdf>

[iv] Marguerite Reardon, ‘Net Fix: FCC Chief on solving the open internet puzzle (Q&A)’, CNET, 14 January 2015, accessed from < https://www.cnet.com/news/net-fix-fcc-chief-on-solving-the-open-internet-puzzle-q-a/>

[v] Nicola Twilley, ‘Why Blind Americans Are Worried about Trump’s Tech Policy’, The New Yorker, 23 November 2016, accessed from <http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-blind-americans-are-worried-about-trumps-tech-policy>

[vi] Brian Fung, ‘FCC Chairman: A Duopoly dominates basic internet service in America’, The Washington Post, 4 September 2014, accessed from  

[vii] Jon Brodkin, ‘Trump’s FCC advisor wants to eliminate most of the FCC’, ars Technica, 23 November 2016,  accessed from