what is happening with net neutrality in the world

Earlier, we wrote about the flurry of fake comments that influenced the decision of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to cancel net neutrality in the country. Recently, the story has continued, and the regulatory crisis has flared up with renewed vigor.

Then and now

In 2017, the FCC canceled the rules net neutralityoperating since 2015. But not many people know that on the eve of the vote, representatives of the organization conducted a survey to find out public opinion on this issue. They received about 20 million requests, the authors of which supported the rejection of net neutrality. But as it turned out later, the vast majority of them – 18 million – were generated by the marketing agencies responsible for the study.

Two years ago, they were ordered to pay compensation in the amount of $4.5 million. But this year, the story has continued. Companies discharged a new fine of $615,000 for using the personal data of real residents of the country in their fabricated appeals (without their knowledge).

A new struggle is also unfolding at the legislative level. Today, individual US states can optionally bring back net neutrality rules at the regional level. But the presidential administration seeks to revive them in the format of federal law. To do this, you must appoint a fifth member of the FCC Commissioner. However, the candidate proposed by the President blocked opposition, but a new man yet could not be found.

It is not yet clear how the situation will develop. It’s also unclear if the new line-up will return at all. net neutrality. Inside the FCC, there are both supporters and opponents of this decision. Human rights organizations lobbying for the interests of telecoms and Internet providers exert their pressure. But there are discussions around net neutrality in other countries as well.

On the other side of the ocean

As early as this year, the EU may adopt a bill that would introduce a “traffic tax”. The regulator wants to oblige the largest IT services [на долю которых приходится больше всего трафика] transfer a percentage of their income in favor of Internet providers. This decision is explained by the changed context of the market. Services use network capacity of operators and offer their services to customers, but do not invest in infrastructure upgrades. Providers say that with the development of the trend they will not be able to maintain the operation of even existing networks, not to mention their expansion and improvement in the quality of connections.

This policy is actively supported in South Korea. Been there for a few years now passes an experiment in which the largest services are charged in favor of local providers. However, the results are disappointing. Experts note the deterioration of user experience. Streaming services reduce the quality of their broadcast content to save money.

Public discussion on this topic is ongoing in the UK. At the beginning of the year, the local network regulator spent a series of specialized consultations to assess the possibility of revising the net neutrality rules. However, he immediately noted that he did not see a serious need for this. Providers insist that they be at least partially allowed to prioritize different types of traffic. But the situation has not moved forward yet.

Old new arguments

In general, the participants of thematic discussions are divided into two camps. Some believe that net neutrality is not needed, others that it is necessary.

Opponents of net neutrality claimthat concept hinders the development of the telecom industry. 5G technology is cited as an argument. Next generation networks become connecting link for thousands of smart gadgets, “self-propelled” cars and road infrastructure. Experts say that managing such a zoo of devices, one cannot do without traffic prioritization.

Others believe that net neutrality does not help fight the dominance of big business in the market. From 2015 to 2017, the net neutrality rules in the United States saw stocks of online service companies only rise. Opponents of neutrality argue that there is no evidence that the regulator’s approach has helped maintain competition.

To that added statements that excessive regulation does not allow operators to develop and offer flexible conditions for their customers, even in conventional networks. In their opinion, business and providers can reach an agreement for the benefit of all and without government interference.

Neutralists, on the other hand, fearthat operators will deliberately worsen the conditions for some services, giving preference to the largest content providers. Providers can start limit access to sites whose owners will not enter into financial agreements with them. Such a conflict between business and providers can reflect on users.

Among the supporters of the net neutrality policy, there are also representatives of more moderate views. They offer make net neutrality optional by law. At the same time, they want to leave the regulators the right to impose restrictions in cases where operators start an uncompetitive struggle. The state can intervene when the market is unable to restore the balance on its own. Until then, regulators should only watch.

What else we write about in our blog: