Why do an open Internet and net neutrality matter? Access to information is a human right.

Hello there! Alex Howard here again. I hope your Friday is going well and that you're staying safe and well, given that April snowstorms and earthquakes are in the zeitgeist in the eastern regions of the United States today.

Thank you to everyone who has subscribed since I launched Civic Texts earlier this week, particular the folks who have made a bet on me with a paid subscription! If you find these to newsletters valuable, I hope you'll share them with others. After almost two decades using social media, I want to focus on building a direct relationship with you that is much harder for tech companies to block, censor, throttle, filter, or enshittify – to use Cory Doctorow's delightfully profane, apt term – and deliver the highest value information I can into your inbox.

Today, I want to share some thoughts about "net neutrality," the principle that broadband providers must treat all Internet traffic the same regardless of source.

I began covering the issue as a technology policy journalist back in 2006 and have followed it ever since, often shaking my head when people conflate regulating Internet service providers (ISPs) and "regulating the Internet," which is a much larger, sprawling collection of hardware, software, and intermediaries than the tech and telecom companies that enable us to access online services, from websites to apps to whatever happens on the metaverse.

The net neutrality principles that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted in 2015 were straightforward: no blocking of websites, no throttling of connections, no paid prioritization of content, and transparency into all three practices.

Net neutrality is back in the news tonight because the FCC is finally going to vote to restore the rules regulating Internet service providers that the agency repealed during the Trump administration. (While Congressional action codify net neutrality laws remains the fundamental reform of choice, this Congress is not going to act on this issue in an election year.)

After years of delay – in no small part due to President Biden's historically slow nomination of new appointees to the FCC, slow action in the Senate, obstruction in an ugly confirmation battle, all deluged in clouds of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (AKA "FUD") – our nation's top communications regulator finally got a full slate of commissioners last year and began to move forward with a rule making.

As with many other nuances of tech policy, the question of the legal authorities government regulators use to make policies and enforce them is the subject of enormous lobbying around the world's capitols as powerful industry incumbents that make (generally enormous) profits selling Internet access to consumers.

Against their commercial interests are the now-obvious public benefits associated with access to the World Wide Web and the open Internet beneath it, which puts a premium on empowering regulatory agencies to ensure that these companies don't engage in anti-competitive practices where they have a monopoly or duopoly, or anti-consumer practices where there is weak oversight or enforcement.

If there is robust competition and consumer choice, that's less important. But in their absence, net neutrality is essential for a healthy democracy. Universal public access to public data is essential for healthy democracies in the 21st century. If access to information is a human right, then net neutrality laws uphold it. (That’s why I oppose Internet shutdowns.)

We should all be able to easily understand what our ISP is doing, what data is being collected, how it’s used, and have recourse to file complaints with a regulator with capacity and authority to check anti-consumer behavior.

And yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission uploaded an order for consideration at its April open meeting that would once again "reclassify broadband Internet access service (BIAS)…as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934."

As a long-time government transparency advocate, this made my heart sing. Thirteen years ago, I recall being quite frustrated at secrecy at the FCC, and I've never forgotten it. It was good to read the footnote in the order that "the Chairwoman has determined that, in the interest of promoting the public’s ability to understand the nature and scope of issues under consideration, the public interest would be served by making this document publicly available."

That's good news going into the weekend. TGIF, everyone.