Net neutrality: 2017
The 2016 US election results and subsequent designation by President Trump of Republican FCC commissioner Ajit Pai as the agency’s chair have put net neutrality squarely back on the agenda.
I became interested in this issue as a postgraduate student at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney (2010–2012). In my writing back then I suggested net neutrality had become a platform for the expression of ideological differences and political tensions between the two major parties. It seemed highly likely the issue would continue to be linked with broader political disagreements about economic management and the appropriate role of government, and with longer-term debates about the future of the internet as an engine of creativity and innovation.
Chairman Pai was a public critic of the FCC’s philosophy and approach under the leadership of his predecessor, Tom Wheeler. He opposed the Commission’s 2015 ‘Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet’ order, arguing that it ‘imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have’. In his statement of dissent (pdf) Pai said ‘I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future Commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered.’
Last week Pai announced (pdf) the closure of an investigation into wireless carriers’ free-data offerings. This practice known as zero-rating is seen by some as a violation of net neutrality principles. Well respected NYC-based venture capitalist (and net neutrality proponent) Fred Wilson wrote about the apparent change in the Commission’s policy direction on his blog today under the heading ‘The End Of The Level Playing Field’.
Chairman Pai’s five year term has expired and he will need to be reconfirmed by the Senate by the end of 2017 if he is going to continue to serve in his current role. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what steps he takes to dismantle the existing regulatory framework and what alternatives, if any, he proposes.
