- Yours – if you can afford it (Image: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
- mg22129544.500-1_300[1].jpg (17.35 KiB) Viewed 2922 times
IS THIS the end of the internet as we know it? On 14 January, the guiding principle of internet freedom, known as net neutrality, was demolished in a US appeals court in Washington DC. Pro-neutrality activists say it is the harbinger of dark times for our connected world. Information will no longer be free, but governed by the whims of big business. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Verizon and AT&T argue that since they built the physical backbone of the net they should be able to charge people to use it.
Lost amid the rancour is any hint of what this might mean for the average user – but there are several possibilities. The court ruling found that the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cannot regulate ISPs to prevent them from charging for different connection speeds. That means they are now free to demand users – whether they are big companies like Google or Netflix, or individuals – pay a premium for fast delivery of web pages, video and other content. Those who opt for cheaper schemes could see their traffic capped at slower speeds, or interrupted to make way for the big spenders.
If companies and ISPs can come to an agreement, though, things aren't likely to be quite as bleak, and the new landscape might look more like existing television subscription packages. Just as you can shell out for premium channels like HBO and Sky Movies, ISPs could offer internet packages that include Netflix and Hulu. In such a set-up, users only pay for what they want – like news channels or gaming sites – but not for the rest.
The early indications are, however, that the net-based firms who rely on ISPs the most are far from happy. Netflix, whose streaming video service accounts for more than a quarter of all internet traffic, is likely to be a prime target for ISPs planning to capitalise on the ruling. In reaction to the court's decision, Reed Hastings, the company's CEO, promised to vigorously protest any draconian discrimination from ISPs.
If such conflicts aren't resolved, things could get ugly. "Tweets, emails and texts will be mysteriously delayed or dropped. Videos will load slowly, if at all. Websites will work fine one minute, and time out another," said media advocacy group the Free Press in a statement after the verdict. "Your ISP will claim it's not their fault, and you'll have no idea who is to blame."
But the FCC could still intervene to keep net neutrality. The agency could designate ISPs as "common carriers", a label that would enable them to treat ISPs like phone companies, which are highly regulated. If the FCC doesn't act, activists worry about what it will mean for the little guys.
"The internet was supposed to be this great equaliser. It didn't matter where you lived or how wealthy you were," says Bartees Cox at Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group. Without net neutrality, the poor and underprivileged are particularly at risk of losing out. If the internet is only available in high-priced bundles, then people will be restricted to what they can afford, he says.
Cox says the scales will also be tipped against internet start-ups, which won't have the capital to compete with established companies.
"It's a shame if this really goes through," he says. "The only person that wins at the end of the day is the ISPs."
This article appeared in print under the headline "Net not free for all"
