is net neutrality important essay

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The long, painful path of net neutrality

Where the war over net neutrality stands, and why it (sort of) matters today.

By Shira Ovide

This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.

People may scream at me for saying this, but net neutrality is one of America’s longest and now most pointless fights over technology.

The principle is sound: Companies like Comcast and AT&T that sell us home internet service shouldn’t push some online data to computers and TV sets faster than others. (The internet companies say that it’s counterproductive for the government to impose this.)

So since the Napster era, we’ve been stuck in an endless loop of arguments, laws and repealed laws. California this week was cleared to enforce its own net neutrality regulation , which (of course) had been challenged in court. This is now a distraction for our elected leaders and corporations when there are more pressing issues.

I talked to my colleague Cecilia Kang about the origins of the war over net neutrality (barbershop music!) and what’s at stake.

Shira: How long have we been fighting about net neutrality?

Cecilia: Forever. It’s probably the oldest tech policy issue I can remember, and I’ve been doing this a long time. The idea of net neutrality goes back earlier , but it really kicked off in 2008. A news article discussed a man whose Comcast internet service seemed to be blocking him from barbershop quartet music on peer-to-peer file sharing. The Federal Communications Commission sanctioned Comcast. That started a fight over federal rules and a war between telecommunications providers and tech firms.

Why does the fight matter to us?

Many Americans have only one or possibly two options for home internet providers. Those companies can in theory decide whether we can view Netflix or YouTube crystal clear or if we see the pinwheel of death as those sites stutter. You can see the appeal of rules that make sure internet providers don’t stall web traffic unless it’s from their preferred business partners or their own streaming services.

However, the debate feels much less urgent now that we’re talking about threats of online disinformation about vaccine deployment and elections. The net neutrality debate focused on internet service providers as powerful gatekeepers of internet information. That term now seems better applied to Facebook, Google and Amazon.

When Google has its own undersea internet cables , isn’t the reality that some internet services reach us faster no matter what the law says?

Yes, but the internet providers like Spectrum, Verizon and Comcast that have pipes directly into homes is what regulators care most about. They spook Silicon Valley, too, because every online company needs those internet providers to get into American homes.

What happens next?

Probably more states will follow California in pressing for their own net neutrality rules, or the F.C.C. will push national rules that pre-empt the states . Groups that want net neutrality laws will be happy with either. Telecom companies prefer a national law or none at all.

Internet providers, public interest groups, some tech companies and a bunch of our elected leaders have been screaming holy war about an issue for 13 years without a resolution. Can they reach a middle ground and we’ll all move on?

There probably isn’t much of a middle ground. There are either net neutrality rules or there aren’t. And the internet service providers see net neutrality as a slippery slope that leads to broader regulation of high-speed internet services or government-imposed limits on prices they can charge. They will fight any regulation. And that’s true, too, of the lobbyists who are hired to argue against anything.

Cecilia, that’s the absolute worst.

Yeah, totally cynical. Welcome to Washington!

Facebook’s false choice

Facebook on Thursday introduced a campaign to convince the public that how it makes money is good for us. But it’s not telling the whole story.

To remind you: Facebook compiles information on what we do on its apps, all over the web and in the real world. It uses that data to help Nike or the local coffee shop pitch ads to people who are likely potential customers. Google operates similarly, and lots of companies try to do versions of this.

These targeted advertisements, which are based on our behavior or computer-aided inferences about what we’ll like, benefit both us and businesses. We probably get cheaper picture-framing services or hotel rooms because Facebook gives businesses a relatively affordable way to pinpoint the most receptive customers.

But Facebook is also offering a false choice between old and wasteful types of advertising and the current mode of recording every hamburger you’ve eaten since 2001 to pinpoint ads. No no no no no.

Facebook is effectively saying that the only alternative to its invasive, data-hogging status quo is the pre-internet system in which magazines, news organizations and television networks more or less guessed at the right audience for a Nike commercial.

But the way that Facebook and Google have designed their advertising systems is not the only alternative to the clunky old ways.

Here are some questions that we and policymakers need to ask Facebook and other companies that sell ads: What if the companies collected less data about us? Does Facebook really need to know every time we visit Starbucks down to the millisecond? What is an effective middle ground?

We would benefit from fewer Facebook publicity campaigns, and more informed debate about how advertising can best serve all of us.

Before we go …

The stakes of online life, encapsulated in one country: Facebook banned Myanmar’s military from its services after it led a coup. The decision, my colleagues wrote , “left little question that the company was taking the side of a pro-democracy movement.”

Hang out for discussions about nuclear power and Korean karaoke contests: The Times technology columnist Kevin Roose explained the appeal of Clubhouse , the buzzy audio chat room app, but also said that it is speed-running through the typical internet life cycle from joy to horror.

Companies can’t quit the plus sign: My colleague Tiffany Hsu tells us why every video streaming service is named “[something]+” “It’s not that ‘plus’ is the best name,” one source told Tiffany. “It’s the one that survives, because everything else is eviscerated.” Related: This meme .

Hugs to this

A look at the Slippery Stairs world championship from 2019. Because, why not.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at [email protected].

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here .

Shira Ovide writes the On Tech newsletter, a guide to how technology is reshaping our lives and world. More about Shira Ovide

Filed under:

The fight for net neutrality is forever

By T.C. Sottek , executive editor who has obsessed over headlines and internet speeds since 2011. He previously worked as an advocate for the National Park System.

Share this story

We’re reflecting on everything from LAN parties to geopolitical squabbles for the 50th anniversary of ethernet: a technology that has enabled the whole world to become connected in ways that once only lived in the realm of fantasy. But perhaps the fundamental story of the internet — the one that ties all of these things together as much as the cables that bind us — is a collection of principles now known as net neutrality. Net neutrality is possibly the policy story we’ve covered the most over the lifetime of The Verge , and that story may never end as long as humans are connected. Just like the roads that have linked people for thousands of years, the cables that now span the planet are a central part of human politics.

What we now think of as “the internet” is as endlessly diverse as the people who use it. For a lot of people around the world, the internet is just the Facebook app on their phone. For others, it’s TikTok and Fortnite . And for some, it’s memories of posting in Delphi forums and IRC chatrooms. But no matter what the internet is to each of us, it’s all been made possible by a sprawling system of global infrastructure that — for much of internet history — has operated under the egalitarian idea that all traffic should be treated equally. Which is to say: your ISP shouldn’t care whether the data that you’re requesting is for a YouTube video or a New York Times article. That’s the essence of net neutrality: the idea that those who provide access to the internet shouldn’t discriminate between the requests of users or the people and companies that create websites or services.

But as the internet transitioned from a quirky anecdote on ’90s morning television to a driving economic force, and as internet service providers consolidated into juggernauts, a familiar cycle repeated itself: the owners of essential infrastructure got greedy. And as watchdogs saw a looming crisis, the fight for net neutrality began. On the side of net neutrality was a coalition of people and organizations who believed that the internet’s historical openness should be codified by law; on the other side were powerful interests that saw profit in gatekeeping. And then there are some who just got caught in the crossfire .

Even though progress can feel inevitable, the best laws and regulations are never really permanent; they require maintenance from every generation. And as we have seen broadly in recent years, our institutions require collective faith to thrive. That includes the internet, which is much more than just a series of tubes. Despite all of its pitfalls, the internet represents a fundamentally hopeful belief that we can all seek each other out and find knowledge, enrichment, and connection. That’s what The Verge is all about. And it’s still worth fighting for.

This stream contains our most vital net neutrality coverage since our founding in 2011. From victories to setbacks, it offers a full picture of the struggle to preserve one of our most vital inventions and to expand its access equally to everyone around the world.

Jul 28, 2022

Makena Kelly

Democrats revive the fight for net neutrality

Democrats are recharging the fight for net neutrality by introducing a new bill on Thursday that would codify the deeply divisive open internet rules. 

Led by Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), the Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act would reclassify broadband internet service as an essential service, authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to enforce rules banning discriminatory practices like blocking and throttling certain lanes of internet traffic.

Oct 4, 2019

Nilay Patel

The court allowed the FCC to kill net neutrality because washing machines can’t make phone calls

It’s been a hard week for net neutrality supporters, as the Trump Federal Communication Commission’s decision to strip neutrality rules from the internet was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

It was a fairly narrow win for the FCC, as the court said it was required to defer to the agency’s judgment, and bound by the precedent set in a controversial 2005 case called NCTA v. Brand X (or just Brand X for short). And the court said the FCC cannot block states like California from writing their own net neutrality laws, so that’s where the fight moves next .

Sep 1, 2018

California is leading the state-by-state fight for net neutrality

Last year’s FCC decision to repeal net neutrality was arguably the most unpopular tech policy decision in the history of the modern internet. The repeal not only resulted in an unprecedented public backlash, but prompted numerous states to immediately begin exploring new state-level alternatives in the wake of the FCC’s retreat. Now, instead of one fight on the federal level, telecom giants like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast face countless state-level efforts to keep their monopoly power in check.

On the federal level, the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” order not only obliterated popular net neutrality rules, but crippled the agency’s ability to protect consumers from a seemingly endless parade of bad ISP behavior, from historically terrible customer service and obnoxious fees to skyrocketing broadband prices . For most Americans the message was crystal clear: the financial interests of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast supercede that of the American consumer and the health of the internet.

Jun 11, 2018

Adi Robertson

Here’s how companies have flouted net neutrality before and what made them stop

Today, the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order takes effect, effectively repealing net neutrality protections in the US. The effects probably won’t be sudden; we’ve explained what might happen without the rules and what’s already happened since the vote last year. But no matter what happens this week, repeal opens the door to some real abuses of internet service providers’ power — not hypothetical scenarios, but real predatory practices we’ve already seen in the past.

These incidents show how complicated the issue of net neutrality is: all of these transgressions happened after the 2005 Internet Policy Statement, which laid out four “open internet” principles that would guide the agency’s decisions. Some happened during periods where firm rules were standing, others during periods when they’d been struck down. Companies reconsidered their choices because of public outcry, official investigations, and practical changes in technology. So while today is a disappointing day for net neutrality, keeping internet companies in check isn’t just about having the right rules in place. It’s about having regulators and an American public that will make trouble for anybody breaking them.

Net neutrality is dead — what now?

As of June 11th, the legal protections against content discrimination on the internet are gone. As far as the FCC is concerned, net neutrality is dead.

The policy’s fate was sealed back in December 2017, when FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order was approved in a 3-2 vote along party lines. Pai’s order, which goes into effect today, rolls back the net neutrality protections that were put in place by former chairman Tom Wheeler. They promise — in name, at least — unrestricted access to online content minus the burden of regulation. But in fact, the new ruling clears the way for massive internet service providers to do practically whatever they like — including paid prioritization, throttling, and otherwise messing with traffic as it moves across the internet. It will take a long time to see the practical effects of the new rules, but make no mistake: this is a big deal, and it’s the first step in a long, slow process that will reshape the internet in very ugly ways.

Dec 15, 2017

Russell Brandom  and  Adi Robertson

Net neutrality is dead — what happens next?

Yesterday, FCC chairman Ajit Pai successfully led a vote to repeal the Open Internet Order, effectively killing net neutrality rules. The full order hasn’t been released, but advocacy groups are already preparing for the fight to defend a neutral internet once Title II is repealed. Passing net neutrality protections in 2015 was relatively straightforward, but getting those protections back requires going through every potential legal avenue. Meanwhile, ISPs will be testing their ability to control internet traffic — possibly in very blatant ways.

Lawsuits are coming

Sarah Jeong

Rogue One is actually about internet freedom

Now that the new Star Wars is upon us — which, as we all know, is the real Reason for the Season — it’s time for what is now my yearly overthinking of the entire franchise. Last year, I came to the realization that if the galaxy had adequate women’s health care , Anakin would have never turned to the dark side. This year, I want to point out that Rogue One , a tremendously underrated installment of the series, is really about internet freedom.

Dec 14, 2017

Kaitlyn Tiffany

What public libraries will lose without net neutrality

The FCC will vote on a measure today that would repeal net neutrality and pave the way for the end of the free, open internet as we’ve always known it. Librarians aren't happy about it.

Yesterday, The Verge published an op-ed written by the heads of the New York Public Library, the Brooklyn Library, and the Queens Library systems, which called the measure “appalling,” and argued that the end of an open internet would contribute to inequality of education and opportunity, widening “the already yawning digital divide.” Later, in a phone call, the New York Public Library’s CEO and president Anthony Marx and associate director of information policy Greg Cram broke the issue down further, explaining exactly which library resources an open internet protects, who would be hurt the most by net neutrality’s rollback, and why handing the internet to ISPs could threaten the basic foundation of American democracy.

Dec 11, 2017

T.C. Sottek  and  The Center for Responsive Politics

Congress took $101 million in donations from the ISP industry — here’s how much your lawmaker got

The FCC is about to give massive internet service providers the power to divide the internet. It is at risk of becoming unrecognizable. A vital global utility that has been a boon to creative and economic freedom for people around the world may be turned into a twisted land of tolls and corporate control.

The stakes are high. The internet now touches every town, every city, and every single one of us — whether we use it or not. Those who control the network control the future.

Dec 8, 2017

Amelia Holowaty Krales  and  Michael Zelenko

Photos from inside the Protect Net Neutrality protests

Yesterday, one week out from an FCC vote that will almost certainly decimate the open internet protections put in place during the Obama administration, thousands took to the streets. The protests were organized by Fight for the Future, a 10-person nonprofit dedicated to preserving the doctrine known as Net Neutrality, as well as Demand Progress, and Free Press Acton Fund. Protests were located in front of Verizon stores across the country. Verizon is one of a handful of large ISPs that is set to profit from the commission chairman Ajit Pai’s expected rollback.

Protests took place as far afield as Tampa, Florida, to Harrison, Arkansas, to Seattle, Washington. The Verge sent staff photographer Amelia Krales to document the protest in New York City’s Bryant Park.

Aug 9, 2017

Jacob Kastrenakes

As net neutrality dies, one man wants to make Verizon pay for its sins

Imagine if you took every single gripe you've had with Verizon over the past five years — the time it blocked Nexus 7 tablets for five months; the time it forced you to pay $20 per month for tethering; the time it tried to make you use a mobile wallet app called "ISIS" — and finally put your foot down. For a year, you spend free moments holed up in library stacks, speaking with experts, and researching and writing a sprawling legal complaint about the company's many, many misdeeds. And then you file it all with the FCC, hoping to get some payback.

That's exactly what Alex Nguyen did. And one day very soon, Verizon may have to answer for it.

Jul 12, 2017

The internet is fucked (again)

FCC chairman Ajit Pai is fond of saying that “the internet was not broken in 2015” when he argues for repeal of our nation’s net neutrality rules. This is particularly funny to me, because in 2014 I literally wrote an article called “ The internet is fucked .”

Why was it fucked? Because the free and open internet was in danger of becoming tightly controlled by giant telecom corporations that were already doing things like blocking apps and services from phones and excusing their own services from data caps. Because the lack of competition in the internet access market let these companies act like predatory monopolies. And because our government lacked the will or clarity to just say what everyone already knows: internet access is a utility.

Apr 26, 2017

FCC announces plan to reverse Title II net neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission is cracking open the net neutrality debate again with a proposal to undo the 2015 rules that implemented net neutrality with Title II classification.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai called the rules “heavy handed” and said their implementation was “all about politics.” He argued that they hurt investment and said that small internet providers don’t have “the means or the margins” to withstand the regulatory onslaught.

Mar 9, 2016

The Dragonslayer

Two years ago, John Oliver called Tom Wheeler a dingo.

The host of Last Week Tonight had set his sights on the then-raging net neutrality debate, acerbically calling out broadband providers like Comcast and Verizon for their throttling antics and intense Congressional lobbying. Midway through the segment, Oliver dryly pointed to President Obama’s appointment of former cable and wireless lobbyist Wheeler as the new head of the Federal Communications Commission — "the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo."

Feb 11, 2015

Will the FCC's new net neutrality rules hold up in court?

The FCC has a problem. It wants to keep the internet equal and open — as it largely has been — but doing that requires making rules . And every time the FCC makes rules, it pisses someone off: Comcast, Verizon, the entire cable industry. Throw their names in a hat, pick one out, and you've got a party that's ready for court. That's how the commission's last set of net neutrality rules were killed, and that's what it has to look forward to dealing with again in the very near future.

That's because the FCC is back with a whole new set of rules . Rules that the general public loves but that the cable and wireless industries absolutely hate: it wants to reclassify internet service as a Title II "telecommunications service" — rather than a Title I "information service," as the internet was declared back in 2002 — and thus make it subject to very strong regulations that can protect net neutrality.

Sep 12, 2014

Inside Tumblr and the battle for net neutrality

It’s Wednesday afternoon on Tumblr, and the internet is in a perpetual loading state. Starting early in the morning, users have been greeted with a cluster of spinning wheels in place of the normal dashboard. “Make it stop,” says a button at the top. Click it, and Mark Ruffalo will explain to you in a video why the FCC (represented whimsically by stock footage of Santa Claus) needs to stop cable companies (a man in a sweater and hard hat) from slowing down the internet (an exploding Earth, covered with a loading sign). Other sites have their own banners , glitchy videos, and explanations of why they’re joining the Battle for the Net — an attempt to get Congress and the FCC to ban “fast lane” deals between web services and broadband companies. By definition, every fast lane creates a slow lane, so protesters have coalesced around the loading “wheel of death” to symbolize the effect.

But back at Tumblr’s New York headquarters, the issue isn’t quite settled yet. “Are we aestheticizing this loader?” muses designer Zack Sultan. “Are we aestheticizing the iconography of our persecutors?”

Jun 4, 2014

Matthew Schnipper

F-bombs and death threats: Americans rip the FCC on net neutrality

Nothing unites Americans more than crappy download speeds. Add in cronyism, old white guys dictating laws, and a taste of class war and you’ve got the really stupid proposal to abandon net neutrality currently moving its way through the FCC’s hallowed chambers. Expertly explained by Nilay Patel in his “The Internet is Fucked” essay, rampant protest to the FCC has been nibbling away at the foregone conclusion that the internet’s proletariat would soon all become serfs to the telecommunications industry. To continue that fight for good, John Oliver asked not just those used to being outspoken in the face of corporate greed to speak up, but those outspoken in the face of memes to use their powerful tools of trolling, comments, to get the FCC’s attention. All of those comments are public on the FCC's site , and we decided to take a look at what America is telling Tom Wheeler. Most of what they’re saying is eloquent, smart, and considered. But some of what they are saying is angry, gross, and incoherent. That's our favorite type of dialogue. So, for your reading pleasure, we’ve gathered the best of the best (worst?) of public feedback.

May 5, 2014

Who's fighting to save the internet now?

After years of pressure from ISPs, net neutrality is under threat by the FCC itself. Chair Tom Wheeler promised to revive the Open Internet Order after it saw an unceremonious defeat in January, but a leaked version of his latest proposal would let companies pay ISPs for a "fast lane" to subscribers, undermining the spirit of the original rules, which barred companies from discriminating between services. Despite Wheeler’s reassurances, this new proposal is the exact opposite of net neutrality. It could undermine both the companies of today and the startups of tomorrow. It might also be exactly the push activists need to fight back.

The new rules aren’t entirely the FCC’s fault. The January court ruling in a lawsuit by Verizon gave it limited power to regulate broadband providers under existing law, and there’s only so much it can do as long as they’re classified as "information services" rather than common carriers like traditional phone companies. There’s nothing explicitly stopping it, however, from reclassifying these services, which is exactly what net neutrality supporters have been urging it to do for years. The problem is that putting ISPs under the more restrictive common carrier designation would light a political powder keg, pitting proponents of a truly open internet against business advocates who say common carrier regulations would strangle ISPs’ ability to innovate. For the past few months, Wheeler has played it safe, promising a framework that seemed fragile but ultimately inoffensive.

Apr 30, 2014

T.C. Sottek

Your corporate internet nightmare starts now

Boop boop beep boop — *snap* — boop boop. You stare at the decaying paint chips on your bedroom ceiling while that stupid jingle loops again. It’s the only ringtone that comes free with your AT&T phone, and you hear it everywhere. You hear it when you wake up. You hear it when you’re walking down the street. You hear it on TV. It’s the strongest signal in the universe, reminding you that you’re never alone. You’ve always got AT&T, and it’s always got you.

Welcome to AT&T’s internet prison.

Feb 25, 2014

The internet is fucked (but we can fix it)

Here’s a simple truth: the internet has radically changed the world. Over the course of the past 20 years, the idea of networking all the world’s computers has gone from a research science pipe dream to a necessary condition of economic and social development, from government and university labs to kitchen tables and city streets. We are all travelers now, desperate souls searching for a signal to connect us all. It is awesome.

And we’re fucking everything up.

Jan 15, 2014

The wrong words: how the FCC lost net neutrality and could kill the internet

The wrong words.

That was the overwhelming message delivered to the FCC by the DC Circuit yesterday when it ruled to vacate the agency’s net neutrality rules. The FCC had tried to impose so-called “common carrier” regulations on broadband providers without officially classifying them as utilities subject to those types of rules, and the court rejected that sleight of hand. Most observers saw the decision coming months, if not years, ago; Cardozo Law School’s Susan Crawford called the FCC’s position a “house of cards.”

Aug 3, 2013

Sean Hollister

In vengeful move, CBS blocks web episodes for Time Warner Cable internet subscribers

CBS stations have disappeared for many Time Warner Cable subscribers today, after the companies' negotiations over retransmission fees failed to reach an amicable conclusion. But cable TV users aren't the only ones without access to episodes of their favorite shows: CBS is also blocking Time Warner Cable internet subscribers from watching episodes on its website CBS.com. We can confirm that when trying to access a full episode of any CBS show, like Elementary or Two and a Half Men, those with Time Warner Cable internet will see an attack ad instead of their normal programming.

While that might sound like a valid tactic to use in a no-holds-barred game of chicken like the one these companies are playing right now, it also flies in the face of net neutrality principles . Not net neutrality laws or rules, mind you, as the FCC Open Internet rules restrict broadband providers, not content companies like CBS.

• Compare Providers
• Review Providers

What Is Net Neutrality and Why Is it Important?

The principle of net neutrality directly affects anyone who uses the internet, as it deals with the type of content they can access and the ways they can be charged for their internet use. Network neutrality, or the non-discrimination rule, is the idea that the internet service providers (ISPs) who own the network infrastructure that the internet uses shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against and restrict the information that flows across their networks.

Although the question of net neutrality has been around since the early days of the internet, it has become a contentious political issue in the last few years, dividing the FCC and prompting protests. Whether you’re an ardent supporter of net neutrality or reading about it for the first time, we’re going to walk you through the basics and what it means to you.

Jump to: What is net neutrality? | Why is net neutrality controversial? | The history of net neutrality | The current state of net neutrality | The bottom line

What is net neutrality?

Why is net neutrality controversial, the history of net neutrality, the current state of net neutrality, the bottom line.

Net neutrality is the principle that all information moving across the internet should be treated equally by those who operate the networks that make up the internet . This means that internet service providers (ISPs) should not block, slow down, or otherwise penalize users based on the content, source, or destination of internet communication.

And as of December 14, 2017, net neutrality protections in the U.S. were repealed by the FCC.

Net neutrality is central to the utopian vision of the internet as a free and fair medium of communication. Not everyone can run an ad during the Super Bowl or get their experimental film shown in movie theaters, but anyone can make a website that can be viewed worldwide. This mythos doesn’t just exist in the hearts of idealistic tech entrepreneurs; it’s embedded in almost every advertisement for internet services we see. The high-speed fiber plan or the cool new app could be the start of your new career or your chance at viral internet fame.

Sign up for our newsletter. Get more from your internet.

Have a better, faster, more secure experience with your internet.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy & Terms and Conditions .

Even if you’re not one to wax poetic about the infinite potential of the internet, it’s still a remarkable and complex system of technology. Just accessing a single webpage involves breaking your data into tiny packets , sending those packets across many different networks owned by different companies (and often in different countries), and then collecting and reassembling them on your home computer. Because anything you do on the internet requires your data to travel across multiple networks to reach you, it matters how all those networks handle your data.

Under net neutrality, the networks that your data packets cross are only allowed to pass them on toward their destination. Without net neutrality, these networks are allowed to treat your data however they want and choose what information users can access.

Although it’s easy to frame net neutrality as simply a battle with average internet users on one side and evil corporations on the other, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Many of the biggest tech companies like Google and Facebook are in favor of net neutrality . If both individual users and the largest corporations are on the same side, why is anyone against net neutrality?

The arguments against net neutrality

The groups most opposed to net neutrality include the ISPs that own the physical infrastructure of the internet and companies that are involved with the manufacture of this hardware. They argue that net neutrality protections could have a number of negative effects:

• Interfering with network management
• Discouraging investment
• Stifling competition
• Creating unnecessary regulations

ISPs argue that since net neutrality prevents discrimination of internet traffic, they lose the ability to prioritize critical information crossing their networks, such as data communicating with a medical device, while delaying less important or useless information like spam. The ability to filter based on message content could also allow them to add features that increase the performance of activities like video calls that are much more demanding than normal internet traffic.

Opponents of net neutrality, like former FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, claim that net neutrality protections will discourage ISPs from investing in their own networks by preventing them from adding features that rely on traffic discrimination. If internet infrastructure is as mundane as the pipes that bring water to your home, why would an ISP invest more than the bare minimum into their networks?

Pai further reasons that by discouraging investment, competition will also be hurt, as smaller ISPs will have less incentive to enter the market. He argues that a “light-touch” approach will preserve the profitability of broadband providers and attract new companies to the market.

Additionally, many proponents of small government argue that the benefits of net neutrality simply aren’t enough to justify regulations. Even if net neutrality protections do offer benefits to the average consumer, these benefits aren’t enough to justify placing restrictions on what ISPs can do with their own networks. This is why opponents of net neutrality often (somewhat confusingly) frame their position as defending the open internet—open for telecom companies, not the average user.

The arguments for net neutrality

Groups in favor of net neutrality include many big tech companies, as well as consumer advocates, human rights organizations, and many individual internet users. They argue that net neutrality is essential for the continued existence of a free and open internet for several reasons:

• Preserving digital rights and freedoms
• Maintaining reliable service
• Encouraging competition and investment
• Preventing prejudicial service

One of the most repeated arguments in favor of net neutrality is that it is necessary to preserve Americans’ rights, such as their right to privacy, and to promote free speech and democratic participation online. Net neutrality prevents ISPs from discriminating based on the content of online communications or the parties involved. Without these protections, it would be legal for an ISP to throttle or block traffic to certain sites, such as those of their competitors or of political groups the company disagrees with.

Net neutrality isn’t just important to what we do online, but also to how the internet functions. The design of modern computer networks is based on assumptions like the end-to-end principle or the idea that most functions like security and error checking only happen at the start and end of an information packet’s journey. The only job of all the network nodes between the start and end points is to pass the information on to the next step of its journey. Scholars like Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney have argued that this design is why the internet is such a powerful tool and that meddling with this design would allow the internet as we know it today to die.

Net neutrality proponents also argue that, contrary to the claims of ISPs, net neutrality encourages competition and investment, rather than stifling it. The fact that even the smallest new business can have a web presence from its start has been cited by organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Obama administration as a key factor in innovation and economic growth in the U.S. Without these protections, as Mike Orcutt of the MIT Technology Review notes , many smaller companies are worried that ISPs, which have near monopolies in many areas , would be free to engage in even more anti-competitive practices.

While it’s a bit confusing to see different groups framing net neutrality as either essential or antithetical to competition and innovation, it helps to look at the specific cases that each side uses as evidence. Opponents of net neutrality generally only discuss the specific impact it has on telecom companies (and some smaller telecoms disagree ). As economist Nicholas Economides argues , “The only businesses that benefit from violations of net neutrality are ISPs. If you think about it, 95 percent of businesses in the U.S. are not ISPs.”

Finally, net neutrality protects both consumers and businesses from prejudicial services, such as paid internet “fast lanes.” These are features that would allow certain traffic on a provider’s network to have priority, thus slowing down all other traffic . While ISPs point out that this could be used to improve the performance of certain online activities, many other groups point out that it could also be used to charge website owners for the privilege of fast access, undoing the level playing field between small businesses and huge corporations and making the internet a “pay to play” model. If this sounds less like a new feature and more like a thinly-veiled threat, you’re not alone. Scholars such as Tim Wu (who coined the term “net neutrality”) have dubbed this the “ Tony Soprano vision of networking ” where providers extract payments based on their established market power, rather than by providing additional value to customers.

Although the term “net neutrality” wasn’t coined until 2003, this basic idea has been built into the design of the internet since its origins in the 1960s. Designed to be decentralized and resilient, the internet takes information from one location, breaks it up into tiny packets of data, and then sends these data packets across multiple paths to reach their destination. The routers between these two endpoints do their jobs completely autonomously and as fast as they can. If any router on the network goes down, the information is simply routed through a different path. No point in the network is essential, and none can act as gatekeepers for the rest of the network.

These fundamental design principles came into question in the 2000s, particularly when the FCC ruled against Comcast for interfering with its customers’ use of file-sharing programs like BitTorrent. Comcast appealed this decision, and the Circuit Court held that, although regulating an ISP’s interference in its customers’ internet use fell under the FCC’s general jurisdiction, enforcing net neutrality was outside the scope of the Commission’s current internet regulations. Thus, explicit rules protecting net neutrality needed to be created.

In May of 2010, the FCC introduced strong net neutrality protections , explicitly stating that service providers could not block websites or impose limits on users. Verizon filed a federal lawsuit challenging the order, which was successful in overturning it in 2014.

Following the overturn of the 2010 rules, the FCC opened a public comment period for its proposed internet regulatory structure. During the next four months, nearly 4 million Americans filed public comments on net neutrality—more than the FCC had ever received on any other issue.

In 2015, the FCC voted in favor of new rules for strong net neutrality protections. Prompted by the overwhelming public input, these rules addressed many of the legal loopholes and impracticalities of the previous order and gave clear and concise rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of internet traffic. These were once again challenged, but a federal court of appeals upheld them the following year.

Just two years later and under a new commissioner, Ajit Pai, the FCC repealed the net neutrality rules, setting off another wave of protests and legal challenges that continue to this day. Although a new commissioner was confirmed in 2021, the empty seat on the commission was left vacant by the U.S. Senate for three years, leaving the FCC in a 2-2 deadlock over net neutrality.

Unsurprisingly, many of the fears of net neutrality advocates were proven true after the repeal. In June 2018, Verizon throttled the internet connection of one of the vehicles of the Santa Clara Fire Department while it was attempting to coordinate the fighting of an ongoing wildfire. Although the department had specifically chosen an unlimited data plan to avoid that exact scenario, it turned out that providers play pretty fast and loose with what constitutes “unlimited” data . The department ultimately had to pay double its normal rate to get its speed restored. A similar instance of upselling during life-threatening circumstances was reported by a family trapped in their home by Hurricane Florence.

While the fire department incident is perhaps the most egregious example, there are countless others. One study found that at least 30 ISPs were specifically targeting users based on their use of video streaming services and throttling their connections. Sprint was found to be slowing traffic to Microsoft’s Skype , which is a competitor to Sprint’s own phone services. In Utah, CenturyLink blocked its customers’ internet access to show them an ad .

Such examples have further galvanized the supporters of net neutrality and, in some cases, become part of lawsuits challenging the 2015 repeal.

On September 7, 2023, the Senate finally confirmed the fifth member of the FCC , fully staffing the commission for the first time in three years. With the deadlock broken, net neutrality and the future of the free and open internet is back in the spotlight and likely to heat up soon.

We’re keeping a close eye on the events as they unfold and will keep you updated on the current state of affairs.

Net neutrality is an important issue that impacts not just people’s personal online freedom and privacy, but many of the basic assumptions that underpin the design of the modern internet. Changes to net neutrality protections govern what we can do online, how fast our internet service can be, and what we’re charged for our online activities.

One of our core values here at HighSpeedInternet.com is fighting for the benefit of our users. We believe that strong net neutrality protections benefit everyday internet users and allow them to get the most value out of the internet connection they pay for. We want the internet to be something that enables innovation and creativity. We want it to be something that makes people’s lives easier and more enjoyable, and we want it to help people improve their financial situations. We think that having a free and open internet is the best way to achieve those outcomes and hope that the FCC shares our perspective.

Author - Peter Christiansen

Peter Christiansen writes about satellite internet, rural connectivity, livestreaming, and parental controls for HighSpeedInternet.com. Peter holds a PhD in communication from the University of Utah and has been working in tech for over 15 years as a computer programmer, game developer, filmmaker, and writer. His writing has been praised by outlets like Wired, Digital Humanities Now, and the New Statesman.

Related Posts

Don’t be fooled: Net neutrality is about more than just blocking and throttling

Subscribe to the center for technology innovation newsletter, tom wheeler tom wheeler visiting fellow - governance studies , center for technology innovation @tewheels.

October 30, 2023

• On October 19, the FCC voted to begin reinstating net neutrality rules, reigniting a longstanding controversy about how the internet should be regulated.
• Internet service providers characterize net neutrality as a simple prohibition of “blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization,” which they claim they don’t do.
• However, net neutrality is much more important: The question is whether the companies that provide the internet, a vital service, should be accountable for behaving in a “just and reasonable” manner.

On October 19, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reinstate the agency’s 2015 decision that brought internet service providers (ISPs) under the agency’s jurisdiction as Telecommunications Carriers. This action is necessary because the Trump FCC repealed the previous rule in 2018 at the request of the ISPs. Predictably, the telecom industry and its allies in Congress have come out with guns blazing in opposition to the recent FCC proposal.

Also, predictably, the debate is being mischaracterized around a few tried-and-true buzz phrases that obscure the importance of what is being proposed.

The term “net neutrality” was coined in 2003 by Columbia professor Tim Wu. It was an innovative nomenclature that picked up on the ability of the ISPs to discriminate for their own economic advantage. Net neutrality became commonly described as whether the companies could create “fast lanes” and “slow lanes” for internet traffic. That such a problem was not hypothetical was demonstrated five years later when the Republican FCC fined Comcast for slowing the delivery of video content that could compete with cable channels.

For the longest time, both advocates and opponents of net neutrality have spoken in terms of preventing “blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization” by ISPs. It is, however, a mischaracterization of the policy challenge that cheapens the importance of the real issue: that the nation’s most important network has no public interest supervision.

Mischaracterizing net neutrality as “blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization” also creates an opening for ISPs to proclaim they are now against such practices. “We do not block, slow down or discriminate against lawful content,” Comcast’s web page proclaims . It is interesting to note that “paid prioritization”—the ability to provide a better connection for Netflix, for instance, if it is willing to pay extra for it—has been dropped from the litany of things the company promises never to do.

When I was Chairman of the FCC at the time of the 2015 rules, the ISPs kept saying they would accept a rule that was limited to “blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.” In support of this position, I was summoned to Capitol Hill by the leaders of the Republican-controlled House and Senate Commerce Committees—the committees with oversight of the FCC. In polite but forceful language, they told me that if the FCC enacted a rule dealing with anything other than “blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization,” they would use their authority to make my life uncomfortable. When the FCC enacted a rule creating broad regulatory authority over ISPs, they kept their promise.

In order to broaden the public’s understanding of the issue beyond what the ISPs wanted to talk about, we tried a new name for the proceeding and the subsequent rule. In place of “net neutrality,” we talked about the “open internet.” It was an effort to remind everyone that open access to essential networks is an age-old proposition.

As far back as England’s emergence from feudalism around 1500, there has been a common law concept that essential services have a “ duty to deal .” The operator of the ferry across the river, for instance, could not favor one lord’s traffic over another’s; everyone had access, and everyone had to pay. When the telegraph was introduced in the United States 350 years later, the concept was applied to that new essential service. The Pacific Telegraph Act of 1860 provided , “messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception.” When the telephone came along, the same concept was applied to it as a common carrier .

The Communications Act of 1934 , under which the FCC operates today, established in Title II’s statutory language, “It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor.” The Communications Act also established the concept that the actions of Title II carriers must be “ just and reasonable .” That is the hidden agenda of the ISPs: to be allowed to make their own rules without any review as to whether those actions are “just and reasonable.”

The effort to define the open internet as being about “blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization” is a misleading head fake, a definitional misdirection that allows the ISPs to claim they would never block or throttle while leaving wide open their ability to make their own rules for everything else.

The issue isn’t “net neutrality.” The issue isn’t even about an “open internet.” The issue that is once again before the FCC is whether those that run the most powerful and pervasive platform in the history of the planet will be accountable for behaving in a “just and reasonable” manner.

It is the conduct of the ISPs that is in question here. Because telephone companies were Title II common carriers, their behavior had to be just and reasonable. Those companies prospered under such responsibilities; as they have morphed into wired and wireless ISPs, there is no reasonable argument why they, as well as their new competitors from the cable companies, should not continue to have public interest obligations.

Don’t be misled by the all-too-convenient framing that net neutrality is all about blocking and throttling. The real issue is why such an important pathway on which so many Americans rely should be without a public interest requirement and appropriate oversight.

Related Content

Nicol Turner Lee, Jack Malamud

September 29, 2023

Mark MacCarthy

July 25, 2023

Tom Wheeler

October 16, 2023

Comcast is a general, unrestricted donor to the Brookings Institution. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions posted in this piece are solely those of the author and are not influenced by any donation.

Internet & Telecommunications Technology Policy & Regulation

Governance Studies

U.S. States and Territories

Center for Technology Innovation

Nicol Turner Lee

March 28, 2024

Joseph B. Keller

Cameron F. Kerry

March 27, 2024

Essay: The Importance of Net Neutrality - by Joon Ha Hwang

Image source:  https://imgur.com/gallery/zfxwB

Everyone knows the experience of their Internet slowing down or disconnecting, leading to the loading circle. We all know how frustrating this can be, especially when it stops something important. But there isn’t much we can do about it because it is out of our control. Or at least, that is how things are for now.

Net neutrality is a topic that is difficult to understand, especially since the Internet is relatively new. Although the exact definition and meanings have been debated,the FCC defines net neutrality as the “jurisdiction that ensures providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled services to operate in a neutral manner.”[1]To put it simply, Internet Service Providers cannot play favorites or discriminate the access of information on the Internet. For example, Internet Service Providers can’t favour specific companies with faster access because they pay more. Nor can they discriminate by slowing access for those that cannot pay more or speak out against them.

Most people use Internet websites and social media such as YouTube and Facebook daily. But by repealing net neutrality, the slowing down on the use of these sources can be done deliberately. If I knew that my Internet Service Provider is slowing down my Internet to make me pay for faster access, I would be upset.  The repeal of net neutrality can have severe consequences on the Internet such as censoring of information, predatory business tactics, and overall negative customer experience.

The Internet has become such a widespread and common experience that repealing net neutrality can affect everyone. This issue is currently being dealt with in the U.S., but that doesn’t mean we are in the clear. The problem can creep over to Canada and affect everyone around the world.

The Law Before and After

Net neutrality is relatively new, since it was officially implemented in 2015. But back in 2008, the FCC tried to make net neutrality into a legal concept because of the practices of companies like Comcast.[2]Comcast was slowing down traffic when providing Internet access over its cable lines. What this means is that before net neutrality became a law, Internet Service Providers could slow down people’s access to the Internet on a whim, usually to benefit themselves at the cost of their users. The exact way net neutrality was implemented was to make the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) be classified under Title 2, meaning that they are a common carrier and will supply their services to everyone.[3]To be specific, ISPs have to treat the Internet like other utilities such as gas and water. This makes using the Internet a right, rather than a privilege.[4]

Today, net neutrality has become an important part of protecting the free and open communication on the Internet. [5]Net neutrality laws protect us, allowing us to do things like communicate with others without worrying about someone cutting us off. What the FCC voted on is to repeal the Title 2 classification that ISPs fall under, which means that the Internet will not be considered a public service and allow ISPs to control who accesses it.[6]Without net neutrality, our free speech and access to the Internet can be restricted by the powerful corporations that control our access to the Internet.

What does capitalism mean?

As with many things, capitalism can mean a lot of different things to different people. For example, I believe that competition is essential for capitalism as it allows the public to have a say in what corporations can do. The basics of economy is that competition leads to things such as price reduction and quality increase, as companies want to attract more customers. This means that everyone has some say as they can decide with their wallets. If a company is providing horrible service, terrible products, and so on, they will shut down because they don’t have customers. This is possible because when people have an alternative, they will choose what they believe as better, leading to companies improving their products. But with ISPs, they are basically a monopoly. Without something to regulate them, they can slow Internet access, charge higher rates, censor content they disagree with, and so on. But since they are the only providers of fast Internet, we will be forced to accept it. Basically, removal of net neutrality gives large companies the power to control what we watch.

Support from the President

The Federal Communications Commission is responsible for maintaining net neutrality. The current chairman of the FCC is Ajit Pai, who was appointed to the FCC in 2012 and named chairman by Donald Trump. [7]He previously worked for Verizon and always supported the repeal of net neutrality. The situation is that an individual who is anti-regulation and worked for one of the companies that got hurt by net neutrality, Verizon, was named chairman by the President of the United States. This isn’t just a case of strong lawyers or systems anymore, he literally has the support of the president in this endeavor. 

The five main members of the FCC voted, and the majority ruled to repeal net neutrality. The problem is that the FCC is the sole decision maker that decides if issues like net neutrality should be repealed or not. This means that once the FCC made a decision, there are very few things that anyone can do about it.

It’s going to be fine, trust us

The first thing ISPs claim is that net neutrality was not needed in the first place. They fear that having to treat everyone equally will lead to a decline in innovation, management of traffic, and investment. Those who oppose net neutrality claim that there is enough competition to prevent misuse.[8]But as stated in Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, the regulations without net neutrality are too lenient and based on rules that can change frequently.[9]Skeptics are not convinced by Pai’s suggestion that ISPs voluntarily agree to not discriminate by putting this promise in their terms of service.

Advocates for net neutrality also have many claims. They worry that without net neutrality, telecommunication companies will have too much control, leading to problems with free speech and consumer protection. [10]For example, if the ISPs can control what content and services are available, they can effectively block certain content from people. So, if someone makes a video that criticizes Verizon and their actions, Verizon can slow down the loading of the video. This censorship would go against the rights of free speech by interfering with peoples’ ability to convey their message. As for innovation, a free Internet means that anyone can outshine large corporations by creating a better product without needing permission from operators.[11]The main example of this is how Facebook overtook Myspace. Small start-up sites are able to compete with large corporations since it is a level playing field, and potentially replace them. [12]But if small sites cannot get off the ground, they won’t be able to accomplish anything. Without net neutrality, only the large corporations can compete as the smaller businesses cannot afford to get into the fast lane. While those who oppose net neutrality will say that they have enough competition, advocates will argue that there could never be enough ISP competition since there are only a few service providers that exist.[13]

There is an argument that even with net neutrality, people are being censored.[14]The content providers that put out information on the Internet can decide what they put online, meaning they don’t post information that they don’t agree with. Those who oppose net neutrality will also claim that repealing it will be beneficial economically.[15]Although net neutrality is important, it is not perfect. 

New ways to use the internet

There are many new young activists these days, and many of them use the Internet to manage their movements. By operating online, they are able to tackle issues by finding information and creating a community by communicating with each other.[16]These social movement organizations see the Internet as an important part of their lives, as it empowers them and helps them reach their goal. 

As discussed before, the repeal of net neutrality can lead to censoring of information. If freedom of speech is impeded, it can lead to many social issues such as racism and inequality being untreated and ignored. Specifically, marginalized groups and organizations such as Black Lives Matter will not be able to speak up.[17]

Net neutrality is not an easy topic. There are compelling arguments made by both sides, many of which make great points such as content creators censoring by not talking about certain topics. But there is evidence of ISPs using their power and control in ways that we would not deem acceptable. Therefore, net neutrality being repealed can have a negative effect on the Internet as a whole.

Even now, the repeal of net neutrality is a big discussion in the United States. The only real solution available is to contact the FCC and demand the return of net neutrality. Unfortunately, the FCC is the only real authority figure of this topic in the U.S., so there is not much the American public can do. And once the U.S. is affected by the repeal of net neutrality, there can be unforeseen consequences occurring in other countries as well. This problem is important especially to Canada, as we are influenced heavily by what the U.S. does. Net neutrality is an important topic, but something that a lot of people do not know about. The best option for us is to make sure we know what net neutrality is and what it can do, and decide for ourselves if we want to keep it or change it.

Becker, Amy B. 2017. “Satire as a Source for Learning? The Differential Impact of News versus Satire Exposure on Net Neutrality Knowledge Gain.”  Information, Communication & Society 21(4):612-625.

Graber, Christoph. 2016. “Bottom-up Constitutionalism: The Case of Net Neutrality.”  Transnational Legal Theory 7(4):524-552.

Konieczny, Piotr. 2014. “Signs of a Generational Change in Social Movements – Activists’ Use of Modern Information and Communication Technologies.”  Polish Sociological Review 187:261-290.

Powell, Alison, and Alissa Cooper. 2011. “Net Neutrality Discourses: Comparing Advocacy and Regulatory Arguments in the United States and the United Kingdom.”  The Information Society 27(5):311-325.

Romano, Aja. 2017. “Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next.” Vox. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2018 ( https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16774148/net-neutrality-repeal-explained ).

YouTube. 2017. “Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO).” Retrieved Feb. 6, 2018 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak&t=318s ).

[1]Graber, Christoph. 2016. “Bottom-up Constitutionalism: The Case of Net Neutrality.”  Transnational Legal Theory 7(4):524-552.

[2]Graber, Christoph. 2016. “Bottom-up Constitutionalism: The Case of Net Neutrality.”  Transnational Legal Theory 7(4):524-552.

[3]Graber, Christoph. 2016. “Bottom-up Constitutionalism: The Case of Net Neutrality.”  Transnational Legal Theory 7(4):524-552.

[4]Romano, Aja. 2017. “Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next.” Vox. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2018 ( https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16774148/net-neutrality-repeal-explained ).

[5]Graber, Christoph. 2016. “Bottom-up Constitutionalism: The Case of Net Neutrality.”  Transnational Legal Theory 7(4):524-552.

[6]Romano, Aja. 2017. “Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next.” Vox. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2018 ( https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16774148/net-neutrality-repeal-explained ).

[7]Romano, Aja. 2017. “Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next.” Vox. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2018 ( https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16774148/net-neutrality-repeal-explained ).

[8]Powell, Alison, and Alissa Cooper. 2011. “Net Neutrality Discourses: Comparing Advocacy and Regulatory Arguments in the United States and the United Kingdom.”  The Information Society 27(5):311-325.

[9]YouTube. 2017. “Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO).” Retrieved Feb. 6, 2018 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak&t=318s ).

[10]Konieczny, Piotr. 2014. “Signs of a Generational Change in Social Movements – Activists’ Use of Modern Information and Communication Technologies.”  Polish Sociological Review 187:261-290.

[11]Konieczny, Piotr. 2014. “Signs of a Generational Change in Social Movements – Activists’ Use of Modern Information and Communication Technologies.”  Polish Sociological Review 187:261-290.

[12]Becker, Amy B. 2017. “Satire as a Source for Learning? The Differential Impact of News versus Satire Exposure on Net Neutrality Knowledge Gain.”  Information, Communication & Society 21(4):612-625.

[13]Konieczny, Piotr. 2014. “Signs of a Generational Change in Social Movements – Activists’ Use of Modern Information and Communication Technologies.”  Polish Sociological Review 187:261-290.

[14]Konieczny, Piotr. 2014. “Signs of a Generational Change in Social Movements – Activists’ Use of Modern Information and Communication Technologies.”  Polish Sociological Review 187:261-290.

[15]Romano, Aja. 2017. “Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next.” Vox. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2018 ( https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16774148/net-neutrality-repeal-explained ).

[16]Graber, Christoph. 2016. “Bottom-up Constitutionalism: The Case of Net Neutrality.”  Transnational Legal Theory 7(4):524-552.

[17]Romano, Aja. 2017. “Net neutrality is now officially on life support. Here’s what happens next.” Vox. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2018 ( https://www.vox.com/2017/12/14/16774148/net-neutrality-repeal-explained ).

Scholarly Lite is a free theme, contributed to the Drupal Community by More than Themes .

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

• Backchannel
• Newsletters
• WIRED Insider
• WIRED Consulting

Brian Barrett

FIGHT: The WIRED Guide to Net Neutrality

Thursday, the FCC will vote on the fate of net neutrality. If successful in rolling back the 2015 rules that banned internet service providers from prioritizing certain internet traffic over others, it will be the difference between a free and open online experience, and one where corporations dictate what you can see, and how fast you can see it.

To understand the importance of net neutrality—and the public fight to preserve it—we’re gathering here a collection that illustrates what it is, why it matters, and how lost the internet would be without it. Meanwhile, you can watch the FCC vote unfold live right here , starting at 10:30 ET.

Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu coined the term "net neutrality." Here, he argues that its abolishment overturns precedents that date back to the '70s.

What would the end of net neutrality mean in practice? Nothing good—unless you're a giant ISP.

One argument in favor of pulling net neutrality laws is that it'll be good for innovation. In fact, argues Stanford Law School fellow Ryan Singel, it will stifle the startups who provide just that.

Given its popularity, doing away with net neutrality will exact a political toll—but not on the agency behind it.

The creation of more expensive internet "fast lanes" could make it much harder for students and colleges to benefit from online learning tools, like streaming lecture videos.

Keeping track of how various administrations treat technology in the Trump administration—the Department of Justice wants to block AT&T's proposed Time Warner acquisition, while the FCC wants to do away with net neutrality—can give you whiplash. But it also speaks to deeper conflicts in Trump's efforts to balance populism with deregulation.

Some respected internet analysts actually agree with the FCC's plan to repeal net neutrality rules, while still supporting net neutrality in general. But the argument that pre-existing protections alone can prevent ISPs from misbehaving is simply false.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's net neutrality overreach is a trick, argues Backchannel columnist and Harvard Law School professor Susan Crawford, designed to distract from the core issue of broadband accessibility.

Out of 22 million public comments, a full million came from bots. Millions more came from form letters, making it nearly impossible to sort real concerns from fake.

Current FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel argues that the net neutrality vote shouldn't go forward until the agency better understands how bots hacked the comment period.

If the FCC ever does investigate, they'll see just how hard it is to tell the real comments from the bots and form letters. We know, because we tried to find all 39 Nicholas Thompsons who commented.

The assumption was that Pai's plan to replace net neutrality would be bad, but maybe not this bad; the agency's proposal reads like a worst-case checklist for open web advocates.

For the longest time, Apple set on the net neutrality sidelines. This summer, it finally joined the fray—in part, at least, because the company's newfound interest in creating original content means it could feel throttling's impact directly.

Looking for a primer on what all the fuss is about? Here’s your look at why net neutrality matters, even when it feels like lost cause.

A conversation with the Senate’s staunchest net neutrality advocate on what can be done, both within and without the political process.

A current FCC commissioner and former FCC general counsel lay out the competitive case for keeping net neutrality alive.

During his tenure as FCC chair in the Obama administration, Tom Wheeler fought to preserve the fundamentals of net neutrality. Without it, he says in this exclusive interview, internet freedom will be lost.

In this op-ed, NYU economist Nicholas Economides argues that net neutrality shouldn’t pit people against companies. In fact, it’s actively good for business.

Sam Altman, president of the influential Y Combinator start-up indicator, argues in this op-ed that early-stage companies shouldn't merely take an interest in net neutrality; they have an obligation to fight for it.

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking net neutrality applies to video only. But in truth, its demise would exact a serious toll across the entire internet–especially the internet of things.

Remember, no matter what happens Thursday: This isn't over.

Adrienne So

Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica

Vittoria Elliott

Makena Kelly

Morgan Meaker

Will Knight

Lauren Goode

Amanda Hoover

Tom Simonite

• Opportunities
• Free Speech
• Creativity and Innovation
• Transparency
• International
• Deeplinks Blog
• Press Releases
• Legal Cases
• Whitepapers
• Annual Reports
• Action Center
• Electronic Frontier Alliance
• Privacy Badger
• Surveillance Self-Defense
• Atlas of Surveillance
• Cover Your Tracks
• Crocodile Hunter
• Donate to EFF
• Giving Societies
• Other Ways to Give
• Membership FAQ

Search form

• Copyright (CC BY)
• Privacy Policy

Where Net Neutrality Is Today and What Comes Next: 2021 in Review

When all is said and done—and there are some major steps to take in 2022—the United States will mark 2021 as the last year without federal net neutrality protections. Next year is when we will undo the 2017 repeal and once again put the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) back to work doing its job: protecting consumers from bad actors, working towards universal and net-neutral internet access, and accurately assessing the playing field in telecommunications.

With President Biden’s appointments of Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Gigi Sohn, a net neutrality pioneer, to staff the FCC’s leadership team, we can usher in a better era. Both appointees made clear their support for the 2015 Open Internet Order and belief that the FCC should begin a process to re-establish federal authority over broadband carriers, including network neutrality rules. More fights lie ahead when the new federal rules are established but let’s review what’s happened so far and what they mean for protecting your access to the Internet.

The Pandemic Has Changed How We Use the Internet

At its core, the necessity for net neutrality protections rests on one simple fact: people don’t want their broadband provider to dictate their experience online. It’s a need that only grew during the pandemic.

As the country rapidly transitions education, social activities, and jobs to rely on a persistent, open, and non-discriminatory connection to the world, views of access have shifted. Today, an eye-popping 76% of American Internet users consider internet service to be as important as water and electricity in their daily life. But unlike those utility services, internet access is subject to the whims of private carriers for a large number of American users.

People do not like that power imbalance, and they should not settle for it. They pay for access, the providers are exceedingly well-compensated for access , and the Congress set aside nearly $20 billion in funding to help people afford broadband access. Yet major broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon still resist the notion that their role as essential service providers should not mean rules that protect consumers should apply to them.

California’s Law and the Role of State Power to Protect Consumers

Right now California’s net neutrality law (SB 822) is being reviewed by the Ninth Circuit after the state’s Attorney General prevailed in the lower court. The law is now in effect in California, forcing carriers to abandon things that contradicted net neutrality such as AT&T self-preferencing its online streaming service HBO Max . We were glad to see the law get rid of a business practice that has generally been shown to make broadband access more expensive while negatively impacting the competitive landscape among services and products. No one likes it when a broadband carrier decides the products it owns should run “cheaper” by simply making alternatives on the internet more expensive to use, but that was exactly what AT&T was doing. If the 2015 Open Internet Order was still in effect, the federal rules would have blocked this practice as the FCC was investigating it as a net neutrality violation .

The battle over California’s law makes clear that ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast didn’t ask Aijit Pai’s FCC to abolish net neutrality protections because it was an overreach of the federal government or because the FCC didn’t have the authority. It was because they wanted to be free of any consumer protections, at any level. They know they sit on an essential service that people literally cannot live without, but they want to be in complete control over what you have to pay, how you get it, and how you are treated by them. But it doesn’t work that way. The ISPs can’t have the FCC give up its authority and prevent the states for stepping in on behalf of their residents.

Remember, California was the state where Verizon was caught throttling a firefighter command center during a wildfire. California has a demonstrated need to regulate ISPs in the interest of public safety. The state in fact passed AB 1699 by Assembly Member Mark Levine the year after SB 822 to explicitly ban Verizon from throttling first responder access at times of emergency. This law was also opposed by the CTIA, which represents Verizon  because even though they know they were completely wrong, they don't want to be regulated at any level.

The importance broadband access has for health, education, work, economic activity, public safety, and nearly every facet of everyday life cannot be overstated. That makes the legal question as to whether states can protect their citizens in the absence of federal protections an extremely important one where we at EFF hope California prevails.

If California were to prevail, there is little reason why consumers will need to rely exclusively on the FCC to protect their access to the internet when they can go to their Governors and state elected officials. Victory at the 9 th Circuit would not only enshrine net neutrality for the 5 th -largest economy in the world, but it would inoculate California citizens from the whims of DC. Furthermore, it would likely protect federal net neutrality because reversing it at the federal level would have less of an impact on broadband access and would be less attractive to the major ISPs that started us down this path in the first place.

We Will Fight to Push the FCC to Adopt New 21 st Century Net Neutrality Rules in 2022

Net neutrality will always be pushed so long as the public continues to want and fight for it. Much to the chagrin of ISP lobbyists (though they get paid to do the bidding of their employers of perpetually opposing net neutrality), no one intends to let net neutrality just go away. EFF represent the public’s desire for the FCC to begin the process of restoring the rules. Chairwoman Rosenworcel stated clearly she intends to revisit the reinstatement of net neutrality rules in 2022. Once the Senate confirms Gigi Sohn as the 5th Commissioner to the FCC, the work will begin.

At a minimum, California’s state law establishes the basic floor of what net neutrality should look like federally, but even those rules were written in a pre-pandemic world. When broadband access is on par with access to electricity and water for most people, the rules should reflect that importance from the FCC. In fact, hundreds of organizations petitioned the incoming Biden Administration at the start of this year to issue rules that prohibited the disconnection from critical services such as water and electricity regularly would include broadband access .

Furthermore, when Americans were forced to switch to remote access to engage in social and economic activity, ISPs that still retained data caps opted to lift them . But less than a year into the pandemic with vaccinations just starting to come into circulation, these ISPs reversed themselves and restored artificial scarcity schemes despite home usage skyrocketing due to realities on the ground. In other words, despite the fact that internet usage was necessarily rising due to remote work and remote education, and despite solid profits, companies like AT&T decided they needed to make broadband access even more expensive for users. This is despite the fact that a multi-billion emergency benefit program came online to provide generous subsidies to ISPs at $50 a month ensured that no one would miss their bill and disrupt the carriers’ revenues. Should the power remain completely in the hands of the ISP to decide the entirety of your future connection to the internet? EFF does not believe so and we will fight for consumers next year at the FCC to ensure that the rules firmly empower users, not ISPs.

This article is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2021 .

Join EFF Lists

Discover more..

Back to top

Follow EFF:

Check out our 4-star rating on Charity Navigator .

• Internships
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Creativity & Innovation
• EFFector Newsletter
• Press Contact
• Join or Renew Membership Online
• One-Time Donation Online

Our expert, award-winning staff selects the products we cover and rigorously researches and tests our top picks. If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. How we test ISPs

• Home Internet

Net Neutrality: What It Means for Your Everyday Internet Access and Streaming Speeds

The FCC wants to make broadband an essential utility like water and power. Here's what that regulation could actually mean for you.

• I've been covering technology and mobile for 12 years, first as a telecommunications reporter and assistant editor at ZDNet in Australia, then as CNET's West Coast head of breaking news, and now in the Thought Leadership team.

One of the longest-running debates about internet access has entered a new phase, and the way it unfolds could directly affect everything you do online.

You might remember the net neutrality debate from a decade ago. Originally voted in by the Federal Communications Commission during the Obama administration , net neutrality guidelines were subsequently ended by Donald Trump's FCC in 2017 . Now a new push for it is back under President Joe Biden .

FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel proposed restoring net neutrality rules in September, and the agency voted in favor last month. But there's a long road ahead still.

Locating local internet providers

Net neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic is treated equally -- meaning your broadband provider won't slow down or speed up sites you visit according to whether those sites pay extra money to have their traffic prioritized, or whether they have a special relationship with your provider. For instance, if you get your internet through Comcast, then it shouldn't speed up access to its own streaming service Peacock while slowing down competitor services like Netflix and Disney Plus .

Reinstating net neutrality rules should be a top priority, says Free Press Co-CEO Jessica J. González. Free Press is a media and technology watchdog.

"People across the country are demanding these open-internet safeguards, which will allow the FCC to ensure that everyone in the United States -- no matter their location, political persuasion, race or income -- has affordable, reliable and safe internet connections free from discrimination, blocking or other ISP manipulation," González said in a statement last month.

Broadband providers deny they prioritize or slow down traffic according to financial interests, but there have been incidents in the past. A full discussion also has to take into consideration the need to simply manage high volumes of traffic. New rules, however, could offer a safeguard against egregious throttling or site prioritization.

Net neutrality regulations would " protect the internet ," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a statement prior to the FCC's vote in October.

"The idea that ISPs could prevent access to certain sites, slow down rates and speeds for certain users, isn't just horrendous -- it's vastly unpopular," the EFF said. "When ISPs charge tolls or put up road blocks, it comes at the expense of all segments of society, and undermines internet access as a right."

What will the new net neutrality rules mean, and when will they kick in?

In keeping with the Obama-era rules, the FCC wants to reaffirm that broadband is an essential service much like water, power and phone services, by designating it a "common carrier" under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 .

Free Press says this will give the FCC the authority to hold phone and cable companies like Verizon, AT&T and Xfinity accountable for outages and potential monopoly abuses, and to ensure the affordability and availability of internet services.

According to the EFF, a final rule restoring net neutrality is expected in spring 2024. The FCC is soliciting comments and feedback, a process that can take several months.

What impact could net neutrality rules have on you?

The concept of net neutrality means preventing broadband and wireless providers from acting as gatekeepers to what we can access, and how fast.

An open and accessible internet has become an essential part of democracy and everyday life, enabling free speech, political organization, activism, education, health care, shopping, entertainment and business opportunities.

The American Civil Liberties Union is in favor of net neutrality rules being reinstated , calling the internet one of the most important communications services and saying that everyone, regardless of income, race and ethnicity, should have access to affordable, fast and reliable broadband. During the COVID-19 pandemic, as more of our lives moved online, the digital divide became more apparent .

"The internet is our nation's primary marketplace of ideas, and it's critical that access to that marketplace is not controlled by the profit-seeking whims of powerful telecommunications giants," said Jenna Leventoff, ACLU senior policy counsel, in a statement.

What do ISPs say about net neutrality?

Many providers say they agree with these principles. Comcast's web page on net neutrality says it does "not block, slow down or discriminate against lawful content." 

"We are for sustainable and legally enforceable net neutrality protections for our customers," said Comcast, which runs the home broardband service Xfinity.

Verizon also says it supports net neutrality and a free and open internet. 

"We will not throttle or slow down any internet traffic based on its source or content," Verizon's broadband commitment says. "We will not accept payments from any company to deliver its traffic faster or sooner than other traffic on our consumer broadband service, nor will we deliver our affiliates' internet traffic faster or sooner than third parties'. We will not prioritize traffic in a way that harms competition or consumers."

So with pledges like that, do we need net neutrality rules? The ACLU says internet service providers were  slowing down traffic to streaming services like YouTube and Netflix as recently as a few years ago, citing research from Northeastern University . 

At the same time, the ACLU says, AT&T was allowing its customers to stream its own product, DirecTV Now, without it counting towards their monthly data cap. AT&T stopped this practice after California passed its net neutrality law in 2021.

Action at the state level has been driving net neutrality efforts in recent years. Legislation has been passed in California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Maine and Colorado, while executive orders mandate net neutrality in at least four other states.

The ACLU says a "subtle" form of breaching net neutrality, which is more easily found today, is when wireless providers discount or include certain streaming services for customers , saying those companies are "promoting specific web services over competitors."

How much control would the FCC have?

ISPs and affiliated trade associations are adamant that net neutrality regulation is unnecessary -- and say it could actually harm us.

Joel Thayer, president of advocacy group Digital Progress Institute, told CNET there's no reason for regulation after the 2017 demise of net neutrality.

"There hasn't been one instance of an ISP blocking a website or slowing down the access of any content you want to see since the repeal of those rules," he said. "All of the net neutrality violations are happening on the tech side of the network -- outside the FCC's reach."

What's happening outside of the FCC's reach? While internet providers are continuing to expand and diversify among cable operators, wireless companies and thousands of smaller providers, Thayer points to "four companies" controlling access and competition online: Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta. 

"Google owns more than 90% of search and 80% of the ad-tech market," he said. "Apple has an iron grip on iPhone users." 

Thayer points out that the Federal Trade Commission already handles consumer protection from monopolies. Indeed, Google is already facing an antitrust lawsuit about its alleged monopoly over online ads , and another over its alleged online search monopoly ; Apple won an antitrust lawsuit over its in-app payments earlier this year, and will be facing one about Apple Pay next; Meta has faced antitrust accusations over its alleged social media monopoly , while the FTC is reportedly gearing up to file an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon's online retail empire .

"The ISP industry is, I think, the least of customers' concerns. No customers are complaining about what's going on that front," AT&T CEO John Stankey said during AT&T's third-quarter earnings call on Oct. 19. 

But those four tech giants aren't the companies running internet lines up to people's houses or apartments and charging them to get online (the modest footprint of Google Fiber notwithstanding).

While Apple , Google , Meta and Amazon were in favor of net neutrality rules back in 2017, none of them responded to requests for comment on the FCC's latest efforts.

Will net neutrality harm broadband access?

Thayer argues that net neutrality, by imposing blanket rules on prioritizing traffic, would interfere with legitimate network management concerns -- it would affect applications like gaming, for instance, that require higher throughput. 

The same goes for streaming TV and movies. "The FCC's actions here can really only adversely impact those services due to the incredible amount of bandwidth," Thayer says. "All of them require high throughput and network prioritization given that most people are migrating over to wireless technologies to access these services via 5G networks."

The CTIA, a trade association that represents the wireless communications industry, mentions supporting an open internet on its net neutrality page. But in response to the FCC's decision, CTIA CEO Meredith Attwell Baker said net neutrality " undermines our ability to achieve those goals while also putting at risk American competitiveness."

"The FCC should instead focus on closing the digital divide, facilitating competition, and advancing access to the spectrum we need to invest and innovate," she said on Oct. 19.

The CEO of the trade association USTelecom, Jonathan Spalter, called on Congress to pass its own legislation on net neutrality, much as individual states and voters have done across the nation.

"Retrofitting outdated rules onto today's competitive broadband networks is simply the wrong approach," Spalter said. "Congress must step in to end this ludicrous regulatory rinse and repeat cycle."

Home Internet Guides

• Best Internet Providers in Los Angeles
• Best Internet Providers in New York City
• Best Internet Providers in Chicago
• Best Internet Providers in San Francisco
• Best Internet Providers in Seattle
• Best Internet Providers in Houston
• Best Internet Providers in San Diego
• Best Internet Providers in Denver
• Best Internet Providers in Charlotte NC
• Google Fiber Internet Review
• Xfinity vs Verizon Fios
• Verizon 5G vs. T-Mobile Home Internet
• Verizon Internet Review
• Xfinity Internet Review
• Best Rural Internet
• Best Cheap Internet and TV Bundles
• Best Speed Tests
• AT&T Home Internet Review
• Best Satellite Internet
• Verizon 5G Home Internet Review
• T-Mobile Home Internet Review
• Best Internet Providers
• Frontier Internet Review
• Best Mesh Wi-Fi Routers
• Eero 6 Plus Review
• TP-Link Review
• Nest Wi-Fi vs. Google Wi-Fi
• Best Wi-Fi Extender
• Best Wi-Fi 6 Routers
• Best Wi-Fi Routers
• What is 5G Home Internet?
• Home Internet Cheat Sheet
• Your ISP May Be Throttling Your Internet Speed
• How to Switch ISPs
• Internet Connection Types
• Internet for Apartments
• Top 10 Tips for Wi-Fi Security
• How to Save Money on Your Monthly Internet Bill
• How Much Internet Speed Do You Need?
• AT&T Internet Promo Codes
• Verizon Fios Discounts
• Comcast XFINITY Codes

• Is a New iPad Pro Coming Soon?
• Get It Now: Spring Tech Deals at Amazon

Net Neutrality Explained

It's our internet. Fight to keep it free

• Emporia State University

In This Article

Jump to a Section

• What a Open Internet Means
• Why It Is Important
• Internet Fast Lanes

Is Net Neutrality Available Worldwide?

Is net neutrality in danger.

• Fight for Your Rights
• How to Show Your Support
• What Could Happen If Net Neutrality Is Restricted
• Bottom Line

Internet or Net Neutrality means that there are no restrictions of any kind on access to content on the web, no restrictions on downloads or uploads, and no restrictions on communication methods such as email, chat, and IM.

It also means that access to the internet will not be blocked, slowed down, or sped up depending on where that access is based or who owns the access points. In essence, the internet is open to everyone.

• As of October 27, 2020, the FCC voted to uphold the 2017 repeal of Net Neutrality rules. This vote means big broadband companies can raise prices and throttle bandwidth without repercussions should they choose to do so.
• In December 2020, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a staunch proponent of the repeal of Net Neutrality, resigned, leading to speculation that current legislation may be reversed in the future under the Biden administration.
• In January 2021, President Biden appointed Jessica Rosenworcel as the acting chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission; she's considered a frontrunner for the permanent job. Rosenworcel is a staunch supporter of Net Neutrality.
• In February 2021, California won a court ruling that allows the state to enforce its Net Neutrality law while a lawsuit by telecommunications companies works its way through the courts. The Justice Department had recently dropped its lawsuit against California's Net Neutrality law.
• In March 2021, tech companies, including Mozilla, Reddit, Dropbox, Vimeo, and more, sent a letter to the FCC in an official call to reinstate Net Neutrality.
• In May 2021, the office of the New York Attorney General found that major ISPs committed Net Neutrality fraud by allowing a lobbying group, Broadband for America, to spam more than 18 million fake anti-Net Neutrality comments to the FCC.
• In July of 2021, in what is seen as the Biden administration gearing up for a Net Neutrality showdown, President Biden signed a wide-ranging order on promoting competition in the American economy that included several Net Neutrality provisions encouraging the FCC to reinstate Net Neutrality rules.
• In October of 2021, in what's being seen as a prelude to a Net Neutrality push, President Biden nominated Jessica Rosenworcel to lead the FCC and Gigi Sohn to another FCC seat, putting a Democratic majority in place.
• In January of 2022, a federal appeals court upheld California's Net Neutrality law, rejecting the telecommunication industry's attempts to block the state from enforcing the law. Net Neutrality proponents cheered the ruling but called for federal net neutrality laws.

What Does an Open Internet Mean for the Average Web User?

When we get on the web, we can access the entire web. That means any website, video, download, or email. We use the web to communicate with others, go to school, do our jobs, and connect with people worldwide. When Net Neutrality governs the web, this access is granted without any restrictions whatsoever.

Why Is Net Neutrality Important?

These are a few reasons Net Neutrality is important:

• Growth : Net Neutrality is the reason the web has grown at a phenomenal rate from the time it was created in 1991 by Sir Tim Berners-Lee.
• Creativity : Creativity, innovation, and unbridled inventiveness have given us Wikipedia, YouTube, Google, torrents, Hulu, The Internet Movie Database, and much more.
• Communication : Net Neutrality allows us to communicate freely with people on a personal basis. Government leaders, business owners, celebrities, work colleagues, medical personnel, family, and others can communicate and collaborate without restrictions.

Strong Net Neutrality rules should be left in place to ensure these things exist and thrive. With Net Neutrality rules now approved for repeal by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), everyone who uses the internet is expected to lose these freedoms.

What Are Internet Fast Lanes? How Are They Related to Net Neutrality?

Internet fast lanes are special deals and channels that would give some companies exceptional treatment as far as broadband access and internet traffic. Many people believe that this would violate the concept of Net Neutrality.

Internet fast lanes could cause issues because instead of internet providers being required to provide the same service for all subscribers regardless of size, company, or influence, they could be able to make deals with certain companies that would give them preferred access. This practice could potentially hamper growth, strengthen illegal monopolies, and cost the consumer.

In addition, the open internet is essential for a continued free exchange of information, a bedrock concept that the World Wide Web was founded upon.

No. There are countries, now including the United States, whose governments want to or have restricted their citizens' access to the web for political reasons. Vimeo has a great video on this topic that explains how limiting access to the internet can impact everyone in the world.

In the U.S., the 2015 FCC rules were intended to give consumers equal access to web content and prevent broadband providers from favoring their own content. With the FCC's vote to remove Net Neutrality on December 14, 2017, those practices will now be allowed as long as they are disclosed.

Yes, as evidenced by the 2017 FCC vote to remove Net Neutrality regulations. Many companies have a vested interest in making sure that access to the web is not freely available. These companies are already in charge of most of the web's infrastructure, and they see potential profit in making the web "pay for play."

In 2019, a D.C. circuit court ruled that the FCC acted within its rights to roll back Net Neutrality protections. However, the ruling also said that states could put their own protections in place. It remains possible the FCC rollback could be struck down in the future.

You Can Still Fight for Your Rights

At Fight for the Future's Battle for the Net site, you can still contact your representative to tell your position on Net Neutrality. The site prompts you to fill in information to send an email automatically to your area's congressperson. Fill in your name and other requested information, and the site sends the email for you.

When you complete the email form, the following message appears asking if you want to share your action via X (formerly Twitter) or Facebook with key decision-makers tagged for you.

Website Owners Can Place Sites and Social Media on Red Alert

If you have your own site, show your support for the rollback , and inform your site's visitors about the issue, too. Battle For The Net is running a Red Alert campaign that offers a widget; avatar images; X, Facebook, and Instagram images; and banner ads that site owners can use to make their own statement about the issue.

What Could Happen When Net Neutrality Is Restricted or Abolished?

Net Neutrality is the foundation of the freedom that we enjoy on the web. Losing that freedom could result in consequences such as restricted access to websites and diminished download rights, as well as controlled creativity and corporate-governed services. Some people call that scenario the end of the internet.

The Bottom Line: Net Neutrality Is Important to All of Us

Net Neutrality in the context of the web is somewhat new. However, the concept of neutral, publicly accessible information and transfer of that information has been around since the days of Alexander Graham Bell. Basic public infrastructures, such as subways, buses, and telephone companies, aren't allowed to discriminate, restrict, or differentiate common access. This is the core concept behind Net Neutrality as well.

For those of us who appreciate the web and want to preserve the freedom that this amazing invention has given us to exchange information, Net Neutrality is a core concept that we must work to maintain.

Get the Latest Tech News Delivered Every Day

• What Is the Digital Divide?
• What to Do When You Get Your X (formerly Twitter) Account Locked
• Do You Need to Turn Your Phone Off on an Airplane?
• What Is OTT Service?
• United Nations: Broadband Access is a Basic Human Right
• What Is Web3?
• How to Turn Off (Or On) Airplane Mode on Laptops
• What Is E911 and How Does It Work?
• Internet 101: Beginners Quick Reference Guide
• Internet vs. Web: What's the Difference?
• Dashcam Legality Depends on Where You Mount It
• Are Self-Driving Cars Legal in Your State?
• Number Portability: Can I Transfer My Cell Phone Number?
• 20 Internet Terms for Beginners
• What is Web 2.0?
• T-Mobile & Sprint Merger: What It Means

Home — Essay Samples — Information Science and Technology — Net Neutrality — Importance of Net Neutrality

Importance of Net Neutrality

• Categories: Net Neutrality Propaganda

About this sample

Words: 783 |

Published: Dec 12, 2018

Words: 783 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Information Science and Technology Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1806 words

4 pages / 1802 words

3 pages / 1370 words

2 pages / 842 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

We value our net neutrality, fighting for it in 2015 and winning against internet service providers (ISPs) such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, to name a few. However, the FCC (or ISPs) not backing down fought to end net [...]

This paper examines if the revoke of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) net impartiality guidelines stands integral. It further explores if the exponential development within the web-based facilities costs instigates a [...]

Although leaders allied to different political divides have publicly expressed differences in many policy matters, one of the most recent contention was witnessed in repealing the net neutrality rules introduced by the Obama [...]

Jawa- It is a programming language and used for developing Mobile, Desktop, web, server-side and web applications. It is also used in the development of the Android application. It is fast, safe, and very reliable.and grounded [...]

The evolution of the internet has witnessed the transformation of information systems from rudimentary tools of data management to indispensable assets driving organizational competitiveness. Information systems, as a set of [...]

In 1939, When World War II broke out, the United States was severely technologically disabled. Therefore, the government placed great emphasis on the development of electronic technology that could be used in battle. It started [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality - Key Facts for UPSC GS-III

Net Neutrality is a principle, which states that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally and there should be no discrimination by Telecommunication companies/Internet Service Providers. The service providers should not differentiate this service with different forms and categories of traffic on the internet.

With the recent Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) decision on net neutrality recently, let’s take a look at the Net Neutrality debate.

Table of Contents:

How can Net Neutrality be categorised?

• All the data on the internet flows in the form of bits of zeroes and ones.
• The components of net neutrality say that all these bits of traffic are equal, so internet service providers (ISPs) should not differentiate these bits of data based on their content; usage, the users, or based on the website.
• Which means there should not be any discrimination from the service providers by differentiating one set of data or one set of bits and pieces from the other.

This explains the entire concept of net neutrality for  IAS Exam  and its three stages – Prelims, Mains & Interview.

What does net neutrality stand for?

The system of net neutrality is in place since the beginning of the internet and is followed in time and in different parts of the world. It stands for:

• Equal access to all sites
• Same data cost to access a site(there should be no price differential )
• No zero-rating  (Read about it below)

What is Zero-rating?

Zero-rating  (also called toll-free data or sponsored data) is the practice of mobile network operators (MNO), mobile virtual network operators (MVNO), and Internet Service Providers (ISP) not to charge end customers for data used by specific applications or internet services through their network, in limited or metered data plans. Ex: Some service providers build bulk websites, bulk content and application allows users to access for free of cost but when the other service provider charges to get access to the same data then it is obvious that users will opt the service that is available for free of cost.

This affects the other service provider and disturbs the founding principle of net neutrality which says every traffic on a website should be treated equally and should be given a level-playing field and one should not be discriminated at the cost of the others. Also, it also throws the very possibility of the  Internet of Things  (IoT) concept to a certain extent

Debate on the role of Telecommunication companies/internet service providers

There have already been a few violations of net neutrality principles by some Indian service providers. This is what will happen when service providers have control:

• They (internet service providers) can control what a user can and cannot access (ex: a user can access only those particular websites that a service provider allows to)
• How fast can a user access a website (upload/download time)
• Payment to access the website and its content or service i.e., that all sites must be equally accessible (ex: For a similar service the payment may differ from one website to the other which means it is within the power of the service providers that they can treat differently the same service for a different website which makes one website more advantageous over the other and thus the net neutrality concept is violated.)

These conditions by the service providers will lead to a dilution in net neutrality, which is nothing but violating the net neutrality principle.

Why and how did the issue on Net Neutrality start?

Even before the debate on net neutrality gathered public attention, there have already been a few violations of net neutrality principles by some Indian service providers. It (started in the year 2014 when Airtel announced to charge its subscribers who use over-the-top (OTT) like Skype, Viber, Whatsapp and etc. that led to criticisms and ultimately Airtel had to budge and the plan was put on hold.

This is when TRAI released a formal consultation paper on the “Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top (OTT) services in March 2015 asking for public opinions on net neutrality.

Why was net neutrality in the news again?

This time, it all started with the internet.org or Free Basics.  internet.org or Free Basics  internet.org launched on August 20, 2013, by Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook is a collection of various websites that are made freely available only to the users and subscribers of the Reliance customers in India and they will not be charged extra for any data usage and it violates the principle of net neutrality and this is how it happens.

Suppose if internet.org, which was later changed to  Free Basics  give free access to web applications for only to subscribers of Reliance then the competitors who charge a certain amount to access the same web applications will be at a loss as they will be losing many subscribers and their business will come down, as obviously people will choose the service that is available for free.

However, there was not much furore on the internet.org as FB founder said this will improve internet access for people around the world and also added that “connectivity is an individual’s  fundamental right . The actual rage started when Airtel started Airtel Zero – in this plan certain websites and applications will be made available for free which is against net neutrality.

Back to TRAI’s 20 questions to the public in a recent consultation paper, which can be summarized in one line as “Should the internet be touched or is it perfect the way it is?” Apparently there was an argument on this which was in favour and against net neutrality which is discussed below.

Stand of Internet service providers

• Telecom companies/internet service providers (ISP) say that they pay millions of dollars to the government to get the spectrum license. Thus one can argue safely, to an extent, why the  internet is not free .
• They pay a certain amount to the government as subscription charge for the spectrum allocations as well.
• Invest billions of dollars to dollars to build the infrastructure for the network and salary for their employees, come up an advertisement to create a vast network called the internet that allows us to access the internet many websites
• But, the over-the-top services companies like Skype, Viber, WhatsApp use their network for their services and generate more revenue and there are thousands of apps that ride on such service providers network for free which the service providers cannot bear.
• These OTT services using the internet service providers(ISP) network directly compete with the voice and message services of the ISP for which the OTTs don’t pay anything to the ISP.

This is one of the major reasons which ISP complains about.  **This is why we(the users) pay extra to use data.

Where does the Importance of Net Neutrality become apparent?

If there was no net neutrality, the telecom companies/ISP would act as a gate-keeper and can take some crucial decisions in choosing which OTT services can pass their gate (use their network), blocking some apps, ensuring the competitors’ app run slow and their partnered OTTs apps run fast. This could put the whole net neutrality concept in danger and create more dilemma in the country.  Let’s take a look at the statistics of the telecom/internet users and non-users in the country.

A study shows that:

• 40% of the population in the country doesn’t have access to voice connection
• Only 12% of the population is using the data connection/internet

To make “Digital India”, this 4 % (with no voice connection) and the remaining 88% (with no internet connection) should be brought on the board and this requires creating a vast infrastructure and of course a huge bulk investment.

For this investment, the private telecom companies and ISPs should participate as the government has liberalised them in accordance with new reforms relating to foreign direct investments ( FDI ) is flowing in. But, the private peers argue that they are losing from investing in this infrastructure and moreover, the OTTs using their network are generating vast revenue and do not take part in investing in such infrastructures.

With this argument going on, a  research was made by one of the organizations  (EY – Ernst & Young) on how much investment may require building such infrastructure that will bring all the people on the digital platform.

This study revealed that it requires 2.5 lakh crores to connect the people in India through voice and internet, thus making  Digital India . Since the government wants the private peers to take up this project but the private peers argue that already they are giving 5% of their generated revenue in producing rural broadband.

But, the ISPs say their service is used by the OTT services who generate enough revenue from this and do not contribute much to the ISPs, which makes the telecom companies/internet service providers to contribute less(5%) to the rural broadband service.  Which brings us to the next question!

What other sectors in India have net neutrality?

So, let’s take a look at other sectors in the country. For example, the road infrastructure: Here, at some particular tolls, commuters pay toll tax and this is because the infrastructure is built through the private peers’ investment.

Does this mean net neutrality exists here?

The answer would be no. Electrical Sector: Here a consumer who uses less than 300 units of electricity will pay the low tariff and different tariffs on the usage of units of electricity and this shows there is no net neutrality. Similarly, in the airline sector, the price of the tickets varies based on which category does a passenger choose (economy class, business class, premium economy and etc) again in this sector there is no neutrality. Now, this puts in a dilemma that when there is no neutrality in any other sectors across the globe or in India why the internet is singled out in this. Let’s take the Global opinion regarding the net neutrality:

• Chile: in 2014 it banned all the zero-rate schemes
• No blocking
• No throttling (equally treated)
• No Paid prioritisation (zero-rate schemes

With the in-depth look at this net neutrality debate now let’s take a look at the TRAI’s decision on net neutrality which was ruled in favour of net neutrality that was declared on the 8th of February, 2016.

TRAI’s Ruling Decision in Detail:

In a landmark judgement, the Telephone Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has ruled in favour of Net Neutrality.

• The country’s telecommunications watchdog introduced a news release called the ‘Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016’.
• The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) barred telecom service providers from charging differential rates for data services, effectively prohibiting Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero platform by Airtel in their current form.

Details ( Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016):

• No service provider shall offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content.
• It said the prohibition was necessary to keep the Internet open and non-discriminatory.
• No service provider shall enter into any arrangement, agreement, or contract, by whatever name called, with any person, natural or legal, that has the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged by the service provider for the purpose of evading the prohibition in this regulation.
• TRAI said a fine of Rs. 50,000 would be levied per day, subject to a maximum of Rs. 50 lakh, for any violation of these regulations by the service providers. An exemption, however, has been made for offering emergency services.
• Ruling out case-by-case approval for plans that might be priced differently, the regulator said a clear policy should be formulated.
• TRAI has clearly backed Net Neutrality by referring to the ISP License agreement which reads, “The subscriber shall have unrestricted access to all the content available on the Internet except for such content which is restricted by the Licensor/designated authority under Law.”
• TRAI has also exempted intranets or closed communication networks from this regulation but has added a caveat saying if a closed network is used for the purpose of evading these regulations then the prohibition will definitely apply.
• TRAI has stated that it may review the regulation after two years.

Differential rates for data services

• Anything on the Internet cannot be differently priced. This is the broad point that is highlighted in the regulation.
• The TRAI said tariffs for data services could not vary on the basis of the website/application/ platform/ or type of content being accessed. For example, a consumer could not be charged differently based on whether she was browsing social media site A or B, or on whether she was watching videos or shopping on the Internet, it added.
• It, however, said that to bring more users on the Internet, this prohibition would not apply to other forms of tariff differentiation that were entirely independent of content.

TRAI and Facebook:

• The regulator and Facebook have been at loggerheads over the issue with the authorities terming the social networking giant’s attempt to lobby for its Free Basics initiative a “crude” attempt at turning the consultation over differential pricing of data services into an “orchestrated opinion poll” on Free Basics. Facebook had partnered with Reliance Communications in India to offer a Free Basics service. However, the services were put in abeyance, post a TRAI order to this effect.

What the Government can Do?

• A part of spectrum auction proceeds can be used to provide free or low-cost internet services
• Free internet services are rarely free. Telecos make use of user data at some point in time to generate revenue. Explicit norms on data privacy and the use of customer data should be devised. User data (information pertaining to users) should be protected from misuse as data  privacy is a fundamental  right.

The Other Views

• Applications like Free Basics would have helped develop an online market in India where the internet penetration rate is only about 27%, one of the lowest in Asia.
• It wouldn’t have been long before competitors entered the market for free and low-cost Internet service.

Net Neutrality and India

Technically, India still does not have a law that endorses Net Neutrality as a whole. Until the Parliament passes one, the latest order is the closest India has to a pro-Neutrality stand. Till a law is in place the debate rages on. Use the Net Neutrality Debate Infographic section to quickly and visually understand net neutrality in a gist.

Questions related to Net Neutrality for UPSC

Has net neutrality been passed in india, which countries have net neutrality.

Net Neutrality – UPSC Notes:- Download PDF Here

For more articles and UPSC preparation material follow the links given in the table below:

Related Links

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2024
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology

What is net neutrality?

Topics Covered: Awareness in the fields of IT, Space, Computers, robotics, nano-technology.

Net neutrality means that governments and internet service providers treat all data on the internet equally and does not differentially charge consumers for higher-quality delivery or giving preferential treatment to certain websites.

• Network neutrality requires all Internet service providers (ISPs) to provide the same level of data access and speed to all traffic, and that traffic to one service or website cannot be blocked or degraded.

How net neutrality is treated/regulated in India?

Telecom and Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has released the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016.

• These regulations prohibit Telecom Service Providers from charging different tariffs from consumers for accessing different services online.

The proposal:

Composition :

The MSB should be a forum which would contain representatives and stakeholders from all telecom and internet service providers, content providers, researchers from the academic and technical community, as well as the government.

Functions :

• Assist the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in monitoring, and proposing technical standards and methodologies for the best practices to be adopted for traffic management practices.
• Assist the DoT in enforcement of the best practices and handling of complaints on net neutrality.

InstaLinks :

Prelims Link:

• What is Net neutrality?
• TRAI guidelines on this.

Mains Link:

What do you understand by net neutrality? Why is it significant? Discuss.

Sources: the Hindu.

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

share this!

March 25, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

A microalgae–material hybrid promotes carbon neutrality

by Science China Press

Microalgae, including cyanobacteria and green algae, represent the most important biological systems for producing biomass and high-value products. It is estimated that microalgae can fix about 90 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, which accounts for more than 40% of the global net photosynthetic carbon fixation.

With the intensification of global warming and the proposal of China's dual carbon reduction goals, the role of microalgal photosynthesis is getting more and more attention. Therefore, exploiting microalgae photosynthetic energy is a promising approach to energy transition for carbon peak and neutrality.

However, the photosynthetic conversion efficiency is a major limitation of microalgae biofuel production. Generally, only about 4–8% of the light energy can be converted into chemical energy in the form of biomass (the theoretical maximum is 9%). Therefore, the microalgae production for biofuels cannot meet the human energy needs.

Genetic engineering and metabolic engineering can be used to improve microalgal production photosynthetic conversion efficiency, but these methods require complicated operation and high cost with narrow scope of application.

In nature, organisms can form organic-inorganic composite materials with complex structures and excellent biological properties through biomineralization, such as bones, teeth, and shells. These biomaterials have a highly ordered hierarchical structure from the nanoscale to the macroscale, which can provide organisms with functions such as mechanical support, protection, movement, and signal sensing.

Against the backdrop of the natural biomineralization phenomenon, the artificial cell-material hybrid has received increasing interest in green chemistry and engineered living biomaterials. In order to exploit the microalgal photosynthetic energy, scientists have been inspired to interface nature's photosynthetic organisms with synthetic materials so as to impart the organisms with new properties.

Professor Wei Xiong from Nanchang University (NCU) and Professor Ruikang Tang from Zhejiang University (ZJU) have defined the artificially generated biomorph as microalgae-material hybrid (MMH), which is mainly based upon microscale interactions, such as chemical bonds or noncovalent interactions. Their research is published in the journal National Science Review .

In the recent decade, scientists have explored three material approaches to construct MMH: (i) cell immobilization, (ii) unicellular shellization, (iii) multicellular aggregation.

MMHs have made considerable achievements, including CO 2 fixation, H 2 production, bioelectrochemical energy conversion, and biomedical therapy. It follows that MMH for biological regulation is becoming an emerging field.

The core problem of MMH is microalgae-material interaction. There are two levels of meaning in microalgae-material interaction; one is the material-induced construction of microalgae-material hybrid, and the other is the material-endowed improvement of microalgal function.

From a perspective of the construction of MMH, the chemical mechanism is microalgae combined with the material through intermolecular forces, covalent bonds, or coordinated bonds to form the biotic–abiotic interface, and the materials affect microalgae functions by interfering with matter and energy transfer between microalgae and the extracellular environment.

Inorganic materials combine with microalgal cells mainly through coordination bonds and intermolecular forces, while organic materials combine with microalgal cells mainly through covalent bonds and intermolecular forces . Apart from MMH construction, microalgae-material interaction in the hybrid structure is the most critical problem.

Based on the previous studies, the researchers propose two mechanisms of material-endowed improvement of microalgal function. One is microalgae-material electron transfer; the other is material-induced cell microenvironment transformation.

At present, the main limitation of MMHs for photosynthetic energy conversion is the low energy conversion efficiency, which makes practical application in carbon neutrality difficult. Besides, the high cost of the microalgae culture and the lack of material technology suitable for the large-scale engineering of microalgae are also important limiting factors for practical application. In the future, improving the energy-conversion efficiency is the general aim for fundamental research.

MMH offers opportunities to boost semi-biohybrid research and synchronously inspires investigation of biotic-abiotic interface manipulation. Research in this area can not only promote the application of chemistry and material in the biological sciences but also provide new perspectives for biological and environmental sciences. Further, this research field may spawn a new discipline, which can be named Material Biology.

Once the photosynthetic energy conversion efficiency is broken through, MMHs can greatly promote the applications of photosynthetic CO 2 fixation and H 2 production. Finally, there is sufficient reason to believe that the application of a microalgae -material hybrid will greatly contribute to the achievement of carbon neutrality.

Provided by Science China Press

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Romania center explores world's most powerful laser

9 hours ago

A cosmic 'speed camera' just revealed the staggering speed of neutron star jets in a world first

Mar 30, 2024

Saturday Citations: 100-year-old milk, hot qubits and another banger from the Event Horizon Telescope project

Curiosity rover searches for new clues about Mars' ancient water

Study says since 1979 climate change has made heat waves last longer, spike hotter, hurt more people

Scientist taps into lobsters' unusual habits to conquer the more than 120-year quest to farm them

Mar 29, 2024

Blind people can hear and feel April's total solar eclipse with new technology

Mapping the best route for a spacecraft traveling beyond the sun's sphere of influence

Researchers outline new approach in search for dark matter through future DUNE research project

Researchers reveal evolutionary path of important proteins

Relevant physicsforums posts, what do large moles on the body indicate, avian flu - a new study led by a team from the university of maryland.

Mar 27, 2024

Are all biological catabolic reactions exergonic?

Mar 20, 2024

A First of Its Kind: A Calcium-based signal in the Human Brain

Mar 18, 2024

Biological culture and cultural biology

Mar 17, 2024

Potentially fatal dog parasite found in the Colorado River

Mar 15, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Nordic microalgae: Potential superstars in the green transition

Mar 7, 2024

How living materials from algae can best capture carbon

Jan 15, 2024

Selecting best microalgae for biodiesel production

Dec 1, 2020

Shimmering seaweeds and algae antennae: Sustainable energy solutions under the sea

Feb 23, 2024

An Old Yellow Enzyme helps algae combat photooxidative stress

Jan 18, 2023

Ramanome database can help mining microalgal cell factories for reducing carbon emissions

Jun 21, 2021

Recommended for you

Researchers discover new microRNA-regulated pathway to boost iPS cell-derived platelet production

Constructing 'on-gel' alveolar organoids as a new screening platform

A new coordinate system allows researchers to compare how limbs develop in chicks and frogs

Mar 28, 2024

New technique for predicting protein dynamics may prove big breakthrough for drug discovery

Researchers show that introduced tardigrade proteins can slow metabolism in human cells

Mar 26, 2024

New genetic analysis tool tracks risks tied to CRISPR edits

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter