The internet is gearing up for one of its largest ever protests. Today, people visiting some of the world鈥檚 most popular websites, including Amazon, Netflix and Twitter, could see pop-up messages saying that the site has been blocked or deliberately slowed down. The pop-ups are fictional, but they paint a disturbing picture of a possible online future.
The protest is over net neutrality, the principle that internet service providers should not be allowed to prioritise some types of web traffic over others. ISPs should not be able to accept a payment from Amazon, for example, to make sure that its website loads faster than competing sites. On the highways of internet traffic, everyone should drive at the same speed, the proponents of net neutrality argue.
But now the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 鈥� the government agency that regulates US ISPs 鈥� wants to overturn rules dating from Barack Obama鈥檚 presidency that uphold the principle of net neutrality. In May, the FCC that defined broadband as a public utility, one that obliged ISPs to make their services available to the public at a reasonable price.
Advertisement
The move has widely been interpreted as a direct attack on net neutrality. The internet, normally a place of endless squabbling, has been near-unanimous in its response. Over six million people have submitted comments on the FCC鈥檚 鈥溾�� proposal, which would prohibit the agency from introducing net neutrality rules similar to the Obama-era ones.
Online mobilisation
鈥淭he momentum is palpable this time around,鈥� says Evan Greer, campaign director at , one of the charities coordinating the protest. 鈥淚t鈥檚 gearing up to be one of the largest online mobilisations in history.鈥�
The list of organisations joining the so-called represents a huge swathe of the online world. Google, Airbnb and Spotify will join dozens of smaller websites and thousands of online activists in a day of protest timed to drive millions more to before the 17 July deadline for comments. The protest follows similar efforts in 2012 against the proposed Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP Acts, which were halted successfully.
The participation of some internet giants should be taken with a pinch of salt. Facebook is saying one thing in the US and another in India, where its attempt to roll out free internet access to parts of the developing world stalled because it only offered a handful of websites, violating the principle of net neutrality. But broadly, this loose coalition has plenty of common ground when it comes to defending the fundamentals of the free web.
And they are right to be worried. Deregulation of ISPs would be bad for online competition, and bad for the internet. Left to their own devices, ISPs have a history of violating net neutrality.
Between 2011 and 2013 Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile across their networks because they were backing a competing service called Isis. In 2007 it emerged that Comcast had secretly limited the internet speeds of customers using peer-to-peer file transfer services like BitTorrent. In 2012, Verizon was for preventing customers sharing their phone鈥檚 internet with a computer unless they paid a $20 fee.
Loosen the leash and you can be sure that telecoms companies will happily violate net neutrality again. In a Verizon鈥檚 attorney said the company would already be exploring the possibility of offering preferential internet speeds to certain websites were it not for net neutrality rules.
Heavy-handed
The protest seeks to secure 鈥淭itle II鈥� classification for ISPs, meaning they would be governed by the FCC just like telephone companies under the Communications Act of 1934 鈥� a regulation both the ISPs and FCC see as too heavy-handed.
Actually, they are right. This decades-old law is so broadly worded that it gives the FCC powers over all aspects of an ISP鈥檚 operations, something no one wants.
The solution, then, is a law specifically enshrining the principle of net neutrality. Without such a law, the FCC cannot be trusted to uphold this ideal. The FCC鈥檚 five commissioners are appointed by the president, so the commission鈥檚 policies could be subject to political whims.
Ajit Pai, the FCC chairman, was appointed by Donald Trump and proposed the hotly debated Internet Freedom ruling. He is also a former lawyer for Verizon.
Today鈥檚 protest is about much more than an archaic piece of legislation drawn up in a bygone era. It should be the start of a conversation about how the internet is run. If we believe in net neutrality, then the US Congress must pass legislation that upholds that definition. Only then will online freedoms truly be restored.
