- The Federal Communications Commission this week voted
to repeal so-called net neutrality.
In tonight's closer look, we check in with telecommunications
and Internet expert Barry Orton.
He's Professor Emeritus at UW-Madison.
Thanks for being here. - Thanks for having me.
- Describe for us what net neutrality was.
- Well, it was the idea that the internet is like a public
utility and that government essentially would assure that
all users of the internet were treated equally
and providers of the internet couldn't discriminate
between types of content.
- So what will repealing it mean for consumers?
- In the short run probably very little.
In the longer run it means consumers will pay more for
internet service and probably will pay more for specific
things on the internet like Facebook or Google or Amazon
because they will be on the so-called fast lane and
everybody else will be on the regular lane and to pay - to
get on the fast lane, you'll have to pay the providers more.
And the providers here are AT&T and Verizon on the phone side
and Charter and Comcast and other cable companies
on the cable side.
- It seems kind of obvious but what will this repeal mean then
for the service providers?
- They will make more money and have less government oversight.
- Some people are saying this will be a good thing,
this repeal of net neutrality,
for rural areas underserved by internet service.
Some say a bad thing.
- I don't think there will be any impact
on rural areas versus urban areas.
This is really not going to impact how fast providers
build out rural areas.
It will impact how much money they can charge
their existing customers.
I don't think there's going to be any impact at all,
positive or negative, on rural, under-served areas.
They'll remain under-served.
- Except to the extent that if you do have the service,
you're likely to have to pay more for some kind of premiums.
- Right, but it won't make any difference
in terms of the rural-urban gap
in terms of the availability of broadband services.
- What about people concerned about the availability in
schools, for example?
- Well, schools are a separate problem.
They are basically connected and get some kind of discounts to be
connected, depending on where they are in the state
and what their provisions are.
But they're really getting connected through the existing
service providers and having their connectivity subsidized
in some way and that's really kind of a government subsidy.
That'll continue.
That really has nothing whatsoever to do with the
decision of the FCC this week.
- So how will it affect start-up kind of companies?
- Well, here's the real fear.
That start-up companies dependent on the internet,
the graduate students avoiding their dissertation
and trying to build the next Google in their garage,
they will have to pay an additional amount to get carried
on a priority lane if they want to be seen and connected faster.
Those start-ups don't have the money
to compete with the Googles.
This really helps the very big, established companies
fight off new services and new competitors.
And that's really not what it's being advertised as.
- I've read some service providers saying,
"Don't worry, we're not going to do that."
- Yes. It changes the internet to the honor system.
We don't do that. We won't do that.
And if we do that, we'll tell you when we're doing it.
It really strips the government, particularly through the FCC,
of the legal power to stop them from doing things that their
contracts don't allow them to do.
- But why should the internet be regulated in a free market?
- Because the internet has become like a public utility.
It's become as ubiquitous and as necessary to normal modern life
as electricity or water or any of the things that we now
regulate as public utilities that are really monopoly-like
and that everyday life depends on.
Those utilities are regulated
through state public utility commissions.
In this state, it's the Public Service Commission.
And through federal commissions
like the Federal Communications Commission.
This decision by a Republican-dominated Federal
Communications Commission essentially says the internet is
more like cable television and we're going to trust those
companies that provide it to bundle the services and charge
for those services without government oversight because
it's not very important.
It's a luxury. It's entertainment.
And I think that's absolutely 100% the wrong decision.
- Do you expect that any court challenges would be successful?
- I don't know.
There will be many court challenges.
They're already started.
Whether they'll be successful or not is a really open question.
That depends on which judges they're seen by.
But one of the real troubling things that's happened with this
decision is it's been known that many of the public comments,
the legal language that they're basing the decision on,
have come from non-people.
They've come from bots. They are fake filings.
People who are dead have filed.
People who don't exist have filed.
Organizations that don't exist have filed.
Russians have filed.
And so there is considerable evidence
that 24 state attorney generals have filed suit
saying this is based on fraud.
So if the decision is based on fraudulent filings,
there's a real legal concern here.
- We'll be watching that. Barry Orton, thanks very much.
- Thank you for having me.
- Wisconsin's U.S. Senators
have opposing positions on the internet deregulation.
Ron Johnson said, "Net neutrality is a clever marketing
slogan, but it was used to create terrible policy
that reduced the broadband investments necessary
to improve access for rural Wisconsinites."
Democratic Senator Baldwin said,
"The FCC voted to roll back net neutrality rules and allow
internet service providers to create an uneven playing field
in the online marketplace for services and ideas."