Originally posted by the Voice of America.
Voice of America content is produced by the Voice of America,
a United States federal government-sponsored entity, and is in
the public domain.


Explainer: Why Other Countries Care That US Ditched Net Neutrality

by Alan Crosby

   The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has hit the delete
   button on domestic rules protecting net neutrality.

   The FCC voted 3-2 on Thursday to end the 2015 Open Internet Order and
   enact the Restoring Internet Freedom initiative, which is widely seen
   as giving internet service providers (ISPs) more power to selectively
   limit internet access while favoring certain data streams.

   In large part, this is an internal battle within the United States over
   consumer choice and how the internet will operate. Nonetheless, it also
   could have a significant impact beyond America's borders, especially
   for those who routinely interact with U.S.-based internet services in
   their daily or professional lives.

   Though you may not see the changes overnight, many critics say that, in
   the long run, internet users around the world may not know what
   products or services they are missing out on because of the rollback of
   net neutrality in the United States.

   What is net neutrality?

   Coined in 2003 by Columbia University professor Tim Wu, the phrase "net
   neutrality" refers to the principle that ISPs should treat all data
   provided to customers equally and without restriction to block out
   competitors. In essence, it keeps ISPs from choosing which data gets
   streamed at a faster rate and which websites are blocked or throttled.

   Net neutrality was made official policy in 2015 through new FCC
   regulatory rules that treated ISPs as a public utility following
   extensive industry and public debate.

   Why does net neutrality matter?

   Net neutrality is the law in more than 40 countries, including the
   United States and the European Union. But with the shackles for
   U.S.-based ISPs off, equality in cyberspace may disappear.

   Companies or individuals willing to pay more may get a freer, faster
   internet service, which could lead to two classes of internet user: one
   rich in money and information, the other poor in both.

   "The ending of net neutrality in the U.S. could be the beginning of the
   end of the open, interoperable, free internet," said Quinn McKew,
   deputy executive director of ARTICLE 19 in the United Kingdom.

   "It is now a question of how much, not if, freedom of expression online
   will be undermined around the world as a result of this shortsighted
   decision to enrich the entrenched near-monopolies who control internet
   access in the United States," McKew said.

   For example, if a company from the Balkans, Russia or Central Asia
   develops its own video-streaming service, an ISP may slow its delivery
   because the provider has a competing service of its own unless the
   company agrees to pay additional fees to have its product streamed at
   higher rates.

   And obviously it's not only about entertainment.

   The Public Library of Science (PLOS), a U.S.-based nonprofit
   open-access publisher and advocate dedicated to progress in science and
   medicine through a transformation in research communication, warned
   that allowing ISPs to sort traffic based on content, sender and
   receiver, opens the door for corporate and government censorship that
   would greatly hinder access to scientific information around the globe.

   "If you want to promote any other culture in the U.S., and you start
   driving lots of [internet] traffic through the U.S., and you have to go
   through these ISPs, they can throttle you," according to Dwayne
   Winseck, a professor at Carleton University in Ottawa and director of
   the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project.

   Or, as Andrew McDiarmid, a senior policy analyst for the Center for
   Democracy and Technology, put it: "I think it's a case that the U.S.
   remains a model for internet policy for the world. Not having it here
   may make it less likely to have it in other places."

   Could dismantling it affect human rights?

   As with many things, the United States is seen as a global leader on
   the internet. Thus, many critics fear that a loosening of its
   regulatory system may embolden others to crack down on a completely
   open internet.

   Estelle Masse, senior policy analyst at Access Now, a digital-rights
   advocacy group, said the repeal of net neutrality rules would make the
   U.S. "an outlier on an issue of critical importance to the future of
   the internet, both as an engine for innovation and a platform for human
   rights, to the detriment of users."

   Some critics say the erosion of net neutrality in world leaders such as
   the United States could prevent events such as the 2010 Arab Spring,
   when social media played an integral part in the movement to overthrow
   oppressive regimes.

   "Americans aren't the only ones who would be harmed by a U.S. decision
   to repeal net neutrality rules," Hadi Ghaemi, executive director of the
   Center for Human Rights in Iran, said in response to the move to end
   net neutrality.

   He says that as the most economically advanced country in the world,
   such a move by the United States could give the green light to
   repressive countries like Iran to continue applying the same policies.

   "The internet is the most valuable invention of the 20th century, and
   we should all be fighting to keep it free. As the birthplace of the
   internet, the U.S. should be carrying the torch on net neutrality, not
   following in the footsteps of autocrats," he said.

   Could there be any benefits for foreign countries?

   One of the arguments for rolling back net neutrality is that it
   hindered investment and innovation that threatened to harm the
   internet's continued ability to grow and evolve to meet consumers'
   needs.

   The ruling could end up being a boon to innovators outside the United
   States if American entrepreneurs find they are at a disadvantage
   because large companies are spending heavily to dominate fast-lane
   internet access.

   Jennifer Yeh, a policy counsel at Free Press, a Washington-based public
   interest group that advocates for an open internet, noted that while
   the decision may limit supply of new content and developments for users
   outside the United States, it could push innovators to leave "for
   better opportunities elsewhere."

   To that end, it appears as though some are ready to pounce on the
   opportunity.

   "Maybe I shd [should] invite newly disadvantaged US startups to EU, so
   they have a fair chance," tweeted Neelie Kroes, the European Union's
   commissioner for the digital agenda, during the debate in the United
   States on ending net neutrality.

References

   Visible links
   Hidden links:
   1. https://www.accessnow.org/access-now-condemns-u-s-plan-repeal-net-neutrality-rules/