Net Neutrality: Where Talks on Free-Speech, Innovation, and Welfare Galvanize

Under the administration of President Obama, the U.S. government had passed a bill named the Open Internet Order. This law upheld the principle of net neutralitywhich prohibited internet server providers (ISPs) from carrying out activities that would harm the openness of the internet, such as modifying different connection speeds for different online businesses, or forbidding access to specific online content that did not match the political or ideological views of a certain ISP. However, under the new administration of President Trump, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) started to drastically alter its attitude towards net neutrality. The FCC itself is an independent government agency overseen by the congress, responsible for enforcing the country’s laws on interstate and international communication. On December 14^th 2017, the FCC finally voted to repeal and replace the bill, allowing ISPs to legally carry out discriminatory measures regarding internet access – meaning that ISPs will have full control as to what online content users may and may not access, along with the possible application of different prices for different types of data (for example, differentiated and individual fees to access music, videos, etc.). This subsequently threatens to end the era of net neutrality and therefore significantly altering how US citizens access the internet. But what exactly is net neutrality and how crucial is it for the average internet user?

Understanding Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is the basic idea in which there are no restrictions on how an individual accesses the internet. Three foundational principles underlie this idea: first, the ‘end-to-end’ principle where all points within the network are given the freedom to connect to all other points within the said network; second, the ‘best-effort’ principle where internet service providers (ISPs) must deliver their maximum effort to ensure and ease the flow of traffic from one point to another; and third, the ‘innovation without permission’ principle, in which all internet users do not require permission from any entity to innovate and create.[i] These three principles ensure that users are able to access and create any form of online content in an equal, open and fair manner, without any restriction or discrimination from ISPs. To simplify, net neutrality effectively prevents ISPs from controlling what users do and access on the internet. Whether we choose to browse videos, send e-mails, read news or conduct online research, ISPs have no authority to limit our activities on any website or service, as long as it remains legal.

The idea of net neutrality has been a major factor behind the internet’s drastic growth within these past two decades. Due to the openness of the internet that net neutrality upholds, millions of websites, applications and services have been developed and used without restriction.[ii] It also guarantees a fair and equal playing field for all websites and creators, without taking into consideration the resources that fund them.[iii] This allows for new and small-scale bloggers, businesses as well as innovators to challenge well-known and established competitors.[iv] This is possible because net neutrality forbids ISPs from favouring and giving advantage to specific websites by slowing down access to other websites that offer similar services (known as throttling).

ISPs are not authorized, for example, to slow down the connection speed to online shopping sites such as Tokopediaand Bukalapak, as an effort to somewhat force users to do their online shopping through LazadaorOLXinstead(who might have paid an ISP to carry out such restrictions in order to gain economic benefits). Another prohibited example would be where an ISP limits the connectivity of Go-Jekand Uberapplications on mobile phones, in order to encourage users to choose Grabas their mode of transportation. Furthermore, ISPs are also forbidden to block certain websites and content due to political bias and agenda – which might be carried out to frame and construct a user’s political belief. In this context, the idea of net neutrality establishes a certain sense of democracy for creators and consumers alike. Internet users are free to choose whatever service and content they deem most appropriate and beneficial to them, without any form of coercion or discriminatory interference from any party. Net neutrality also serves to support freedom of speech within a society as ISPs cannot simply block content without strong legal foundations.

Net Neutrality: Pros and Cons

Nonetheless, as beneficial as it may sound for users and creators, legalized forms of net neutrality have been opposed by critics who claim that the internet should not be ‘regulated’ in any sense. Those who challenge the idea of net neutrality assert that such a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy only hampers innovation and diversification of internet services, as it prevents companies and ISPs from turning new business models into successful products. To provide an example, net neutrality hinders ISPs from offering priority-service plans and fast-lane connections to users who pay more. ISPs claim that consumers are in fact willing to pay different prices for different services offered by ISPs[v], and that net neutrality only serves to impede this possibility. This has particularly been the case with many ISPs who seek to gain additional economic gain through restriction and discrimination of specific content. However, if net neutrality were to be dismissed in the U.S. – which seems to be the most likely scenario–  then it is possible that citizens would have to pay different individual prices for each type of online content they want to access. ISPs such as Verizon, for instance, may force consumers to pay additional monthly fees if they wish to gain access to Netflix servers due to the large amounts of data transfer that it ensues. Ease of access to online music, e-mail and social media may also be differentiated by ISPs as they might offer varied plans for each form of online data that users access.

The Case in Indonesia

Indonesia’s internet situation may offer an accurate image of what U.S citizens might face if their net neutrality is indeed repealed. Data-based discrimination has already happened in Indonesia, as mobile network providers offer different packages and plans for different types of content (limited video streaming quota such as Telkomsel’s HOOQ and dedicated social-media access as provided by XL can be seen as examples). There are also time-based restrictions on when data plans may be used by consumers, as well as seemingly-unlimited Wi-Fi access that actually limits a user’s internet speed when they reach a certain amount of data usage. Government-supported censoring and blocking of certain websites have also been carried out; websites such as Reddit, Vimeo & Imgur have been victims of the government’s ‘TRUST+ Positif’ censoring movement as they have been accused of containing pornographic content (although they did not ban other websites where pornographic materials may also be found, such as Twitter and Facebook). Blocking also occurred to Netflix when it first entered the Indonesian market in early 2016. Telkomsel claimed that the worldwide-popular service did not fulfill government qualifications and violated pornography regulations;[vi] but in truth, such an act of censoring by the government-owned company was also an effort to defend its very own video-streaming service. Indonesia’s unwillingness to implement net neutrality has been further underlined by strong statements made by influential figures. Alexander Rusli, the former CEO of Indosat as well as the head of Indonesia’s Telecommunication Provider Association (ATSI), mentioned that “Indosat strongly opposes the idea of net neutrality, and so do the government and all other operators”.[vii] This stance was supported by Nonot Harsono, a member of Indonesia’s Committee for Telecommunication Regulations (BRTI). “Our operators’ choice to firmly oppose net neutrality is actually a good thing”, he stated.[viii]

As far as the writer has observed, Indonesia’s lack of net neutrality has not been strongly opposed by the public. Indonesia’s society has gladly accepted the non-neutral services provided by the national ISPs and mobile operators, and they do not perceive differentiated access of data as an issue. However, this is largely because net neutrality is a concept that remains to be unknown to the vast majority the society. The idea of net neutrality and freedom of access to the internet has never been introduced within the country’s history of technological development, and thus Indonesians are unaware that such a concept exists – resulting in an unsurprisingly accepting attitude towards what national ISPs currently offer to them. This is worsened by the fact that Indonesian citizens simply do not have a choice since there is no governmental support for net neutrality whatsoever. For Indonesians, the choice is as follows: whether you use the internet based on the non-neutral rules made by the ISPs, or you do not use it all. Nonetheless, continued allowance of the lack of net neutrality may result in more serious long-term implications towards the freedom of internet in Indonesia. New developers and creators may no longer enjoy the opportunity to share their ideas and challenge long-standing big players of the digital world without being forced to pay large amounts of money. This is not the case within the U.S. as there have been major public backlash towards the FCC’s plan to eliminate net neutrality. For certain U.S. citizens, upholding net neutrality also means upholding their First Amendment regarding freedom of speech,[ix] and they are aware that eliminating net neutrality would also mean eliminating a free and open internet. Unfortunately, it remains to be unclear when the Indonesian society will view the concept of net neutrality in such a manner. In short, the case of net neutrality is not necessarily relevant with the understanding on democracy and free speech in Indonesia.

In conclusion, the repeal of net neutrality in the U.S. will bring paramount alterations toward democracy in both the real and digital world. This is highlighted by how adamant the US administration has been regarding the issue, who have not taken any meaningful consideration of whether public support is present or not. For example, when shown a policy briefing which comprehensively explained the pros and cons of net neutrality, as much as 83% of American citizens decided they disagreed with the FCC’s decision to repeal the law.[x] But the Trump administration and the FCC do not seem to have any concern for this – nor do they seem to care for how the entire debacle has in fact instigated widespread grassroots activism and increased democratic participation. Such complete disregard for public input will not only hurt the U.S. democracy in the context of the administration’s relations with the public, but it will also severely damage the democracy of the digital world which had previously protected the survival of small-scale businesses and the equal freedom of speech for all individuals.

The removal of net neutrality may very well bring heightened economic advantages for ISPs. However, the internet’s massive growth within these recent decades was due to its emphasis on creating a free and open network that was accessible for all, where all individuals, businesses and organizations had an equal chance of creating content and achieving their goals – a principle which is soon to be eroded, due to the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality.

Editors: Diah Ratna Pratiwi, MDEV; Viyasa Rahyaputra, SIP; Nabeel Khawarizmy Muna, SIP Picture: pexels

[i] Cannella, G., MacDonald, R., & Ben-Avie, J. (2013). Net Neutrality – Ending Network Discrimination in Europe. Access (online). Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/access.3cdn.net/653b3b0adb37e88f4b_u7m6vw480.pdf [Accessed 28 November 2017].

[ii] Consumers Union. (2017). ‘Net Neutrality and the Open Internet’. Policy & Action from Consumer Reports (online). Available at: http://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/1423/2017/07/FINAL.position-paper.CU_.net-neutrality.pdf [Accessed 29 November 2017].

[iii] Chung, Alex & Xing, Chi. (2011). The Ethics of Net Neutrality (online). Available at: http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/fall11/p211.pdf [Accessed 28 November 2017].

[iv] Chung, The Ethics of Net Neutrality.

[v] Chung, The Ethics of Net Neutrality.

[vi] Chung, The Ethics of Net Neutrality.

[vii] Wahyudi, Reza. (2015). ‘Di Indonesia, Internet tidak perlu Adil & Setara?’. Kompas (online, Indonesian). Available at: http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2015/04/25/08050437/Di.Indonesia.Internet.Tak.Perlu.Adil.dan.Setara [Accessed 29 November 2017].

[viii] ‘Operator Wajar Tolak Net Neutrality?’. Indotelko (online, Indonesian). Available at: http://www.indotelko.com/kanal?it=Operator-Wajar-Tolak-Net-Neutrality [Accessed 30 November 2017].

[ix] Shaban, Hamza. (2017). ‘Democrats Are Bracing For A Big, Public Fight To Protect Net Neutrality’. CNBC (online). Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/democrats-are-bracing-for-a-big-public-fight-over-net-neutrality.html [Accessed 30 November 2017].

[x] Soha, M. (2017). ‘What Losing Net Neutrality Means for Democracy’. Huffington Post (online). Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-losing-net-neutrality-means-for-democracy_us_5a3422a4e4b0e1b4472ae62e [Accessed 27 December 2017].