"I Was Wrong About Net Neutrality (R.I.P.) and That Could Be Good News."
The world rotates on its own axis.
Eight years ago, a potential crisis regarding Net Neutrality, which had recently emerged, was anticipated. It was eliminated by the Trump administration in 2017. At the time, this was considered to mark the end of freedom on the internet, and the negative consequences it could bring were detailed. However, following a decision by a federal appeals court that dismissed the Biden administration's attempts to restore Net Neutrality, it is now recognized that it may not have been the solution that was thought.
Net Neutrality seeks to ensure that all data reaching users is treated equally by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), preventing certain information from being prioritized over others. This idea of non-discrimination aims to protect freedom of expression and ensure that diverse viewpoints have the opportunity to be heard.
However, the enforcement of Net Neutrality relies on an interpretation of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, which was originally designed for telephone companies, not for broadband providers. The court determined that federal agencies like the FCC could not reinterpret regulations arbitrarily, resulting in a framework where ISPs are not obligated to follow these rules, and Net Neutrality is considered "dead."
Since then, the internet has been operating without these regulations for several years. Predictions of what could happen included the end of quality online content, the disappearance of affordable options, and the difficulty in finding favorite websites, among others. However, many of these changes have occurred, although not necessarily due to the lack of Net Neutrality, but rather because of the growing power of large tech companies without adequate regulation.
For example, platforms like Google are changing the way content is accessed, affecting small independent sites that struggle to become visible against media giants. Additionally, the cost of content has risen, driven by competition among streaming services, leading to increased prices and restrictions such as limitations on password sharing. These changes seem to be more related to the internal dynamics of streaming platforms than to the role of ISPs.
ISPs do, in fact, face a diminished capacity for control over the online experience compared to social media platforms, which have had serious issues managing discourse and information. This highlights the need for broader and more effective regulation that addresses the challenges of today's digital world, rather than trying to adapt old regulations to a modern reality.
It is concluded that the issue of Net Neutrality is only part of a more complex digital landscape. It is suggested that it is time to formulate regulations that consider current needs for equality, justice, and access to high-speed internet for all.
