JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:
In a world with net neutrality, your internet provider can't charge you more to make shopping on Amazon faster than shopping on eBay, and that internet provider can't ask Netflix to pay more so that Netflix watchers can stream movies in better quality than, say, Hulu or Disney+ watchers can. But net neutrality has been back and forth in the courts for years. And last week, a federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, and President-elect Trump's pick to lead the FCC celebrated the decision. Let's bring in Barbara van Schewick who studied and advocated for net neutrality for decades. She is a professor of law at Stanford University. Welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.
BARBARA VAN SCHEWICK: Hi, Juana. Thanks for having me.
SUMMERS: Let's just start with this. How big is this decision that happened last Thursday? Put it into context for us.
VAN SCHEWICK: This decision is a huge setback for American consumers and businesses that rely on the internet. And this decision strips the Federal Communications Commission of its authority over access to the internet - the most important communications network of our time. That's as if the Federal Aviation Administration no longer had the power to oversee airlines like Delta and American. Think about it this way. The FCC can still protect you when you make a regular phone call but not when you use the internet. That's a really radical decision.
SUMMERS: I mean, the internet is such a big part of life for so many of us. I'm thinking about this. Who may be affected by this the most and how?
VAN SCHEWICK: So it's hard to predict, but let me give you a real example of what happens without proper oversight. So right now, if you have a basic unlimited plan from AT&T wireless, Verizon wireless or T-Mobile, these companies are already limiting what you can do online. So even if you're paying for high-speed 5G service, these companies deliberately slow down and blur your video from Netflix, YouTube or TikTok, unless you pay extra for a more expensive plan. They're just trying to squeeze more money out of you. And that's exactly what net neutrality was designed to prevent. The principle is really simple. When you pay for internet access, how you use that connection should be up to you, not your provider.
SUMMERS: A collection of broadband industry groups which represent providers like AT&T and Verizon applauded this decision. They said, and I'm quoting here, "that it will lead to more investment innovation and competition." What can history tell us about times when net neutrality was not enforced? What did that look like?
VAN SCHEWICK: Yes. So in terms of investment, that's a talking point by the phone and cable companies that's long rebutted. In fact, the ISPs have told their investors over and over that net neutrality protections do not affect their investment in broadband networks. At the same time, we have seen that when there were no protections or gap in protections, then ISPs have exploited these. Two examples were that - in 2005, for example, a phone company blocked people from using Vonage, an internet phone service that competed with their traditional phone business. And then in 2007, Comcast blocked peer-to-peer services that competed with their cable TV business. This matters because the internet isn't a luxury anymore. It's essential infrastructure like electricity or water.
SUMMERS: How can any of us know if what we're experiencing is an awful Wi-Fi zone versus our internet provider slowing access to a streaming service for not forking over more money?
VAN SCHEWICK: You know, that's one of the key reasons why we need net neutrality protections. You know, the good news is that some states, after the FCC eliminated net neutrality in 2018, adopted state net neutrality rules that protect their residents. So the most well-known is the California net neutrality law. That law is widely viewed as a model law because it matches all of the net neutrality protections that were in place at the federal level. Over the past few years, the courts have made very clear that when the FCC has no authority to protect consumers online, then the states can step in to protect their residents.
SUMMERS: That's Stanford law professor, Barbara van Schewick. Thank you so much.
VAN SCHEWICK: Thanks for having me. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
