December 21, 2017
In a time of heightened emotional reaction to pretty much anything, the phrase “net neutrality” can be up there with the best of them. Or many may be left scratching their head at the phrase. I worked at public policy organizations for a number of years before I knew what people even meant by the phrase! The “net neutrality” debate may be so contentious because the spread and dissemination of ideas are at the core.
There are in fact multiple definitions of “net neutrality,” all slightly, but importantly, different, and all dependent on the context. At the root, it means that all data or “traffic” on the internet or a network should be treated equally. This means your high definition movie should download at the same speed as my video game or email.
What is meant in the headlines you’ve probably seen recently is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision to remove internet service providers from regulation designed for the telephone system of our parents and grandparents. The FCC has passed two sets of “net neutrality” regulations since 2010. The stories you are seeing now are discussing the rollback of the second attempted regulation, the 2015 Open Internet Order, which has been law since then. The previous net neutrality rules from 2010 were struck down by the courts because they were ruled to be outside the FCC’s legal jurisdiction—to put it simply.
In May of 2017, current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to roll back the 2015 regulation in the Restore Internet Freedom rule. The FCC on December 14, 2017 voted 3-2 to pass the Restore Internet Freedom rule, which means that enforcement of any corporate wrongdoing shifted to other government agencies and the regulatory framework for the internet shifted back to a pre-2015 world.
Fundamentally–and very, very basically–the internet relies on service providers—companies we know like AT&T, Verizon—who then often rely on other providers—like Akamai and Level 3. All these companies carry the content from content producers and curators like Netflix, Facebook, and Google. When we talk about “the internet” we are talking about a multi-tiered “network of networks,” which we only see part of, almost like an iceberg.
These companies have different incentives and needs. To make money, Verizon must have subscribers but efficiently manage the data flowing in a neighborhood so my movie streaming doesn’t unreasonably impede your movie streaming. These companies also have to deal with the physical realities of placing cables or building cell towers in order for you to have service. Facebook or any other website usually wants as many eyes on its content as possible, as quickly as possible. They invest in software and sometimes hardware to make that happen but also use the companies that installed the cables and cell towers. Sometimes there is crossover, like Google Fiber, but for the most part they each have unique, interdependent roles to play in the internet ecosystem.
In this internet ecosystem, net neutrality as a broad principle is favored by nearly everyone. Net neutrality as defined in the 2015 FCC regulations, are supported by some and opposed by others. In the 2015 regulations, content providers are usually pitted against service providers.
There are arguments that say internet service providers, unenforced by regulations like those about to be repealed, will slow down or throttle the download speeds of those companies who don’t pony up a fee. That they would extort content producers like Netflix, Amazon, and your blog for fees if you want your information to consumer first. There are other arguments that say stringent rules would choke off innovation and lead to a stagnant, stuck-in-the-past model of an internet ecosystem. Resources for and summaries of these arguments are numerous and can be found with a quick search. In short, what the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom rule would do is apply a light touch regulatory framework to internet service providers. Where there is malfeasance, it can still be addressed by the Federal Trade Commission, the agency with a track record of punishing companies for foul play.
Christians should care about this issue because the spread of ideas and words is at stake. The Gospel is made of words. It must be said though that the spread of the Gospel has never been hindered by even the most intense walls and firewalls. So, there is not an existential threat here whether these rules stand or fall. But as we are able, let us advocate for systems that promote freedom for the Gospel and all its competitors. The church has a history of taking advantage of information technology for societal benefit. The printing press was used to spread copies of the bible, making it much more affordable. Radio technology over the last century has let churches in closed countries receive teaching and encouragement. Let’s continue to take advantage of and advocate for experimentation and new business models, giving the network designers of the future a chance to make what God has designed for them to create instead of locking ourselves into mid-2010s technologies. Goodness knows the internet and technology aren’t the same now as they were 10, 20 years ago and won’t be 10, 20 years from now.
Christianity has always fundamentally been about the spread of ideas and propositions, some in the form of evidence, even if certain leaders and churches throughout history have wrongly closed off open debate. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 fully endorsed putting the arguments of Christianity on the line by saying if Jesus Christ has not been raised from the dead then “we of all people are most to be pitied.” It’d all be pointless if Jesus has not risen from the dead! Christianity rests on evidence that can be weighed and accepted or denied. With that in mind, then we Christians should pay attention to policy ideas that purport to hinder or boost the free flow of ideas and creativity.
As such, Christians should be supportive of systems and policies that encourage free communication of ideas and human flourishing. Conversations about the validity and morality of content spread over the internet should continue to happen in families, churches, and society. Make your case, examine your views, and explain where you are coming from. Christianity is not a religion of defeat. Jesus remains Jesus whether or not net neutrality regulations are in place. The assurance of victory in Jesus should give us the courage to have pleasant, humble conversations with those who disagree with us whether in person or on the internet.
