Here & Now

Expert Discusses Future Of Internet Post-Net Neutrality

Frederica Freyberg:

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.

Barry Orton:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Describe for us what net neutrality was.

Barry Orton:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what will repealing it mean for consumers?

Barry Orton:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

It seems kind of obvious but what will this repeal mean then for the service providers?

Barry Orton:

They will make more money and have less government oversight.

Frederica Freyberg:

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.

Barry Orton:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

Except to the extent that if you do have the service, you’re likely to have to pay more for some kind of premiums.

Barry Orton:

Right, but it won’t make any difference in terms of the rural-urban gap in terms of the availability of broadband services.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about people concerned about the availability in schools, for example?

Barry Orton:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

So how will it affect start-up kind of companies?

Barry Orton:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

I've read some service providers saying, “Don’t worry, we’re not going to do that.”

Barry Orton:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

But why should the internet be regulated in a free market?

Barry Orton:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you expect that any court challenges would be successful?

Barry Orton:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

We'll be watching that. Barry Orton, thanks very much.

Barry Orton:

Thank you for having me.