The Repealing Of Current Net Neutrality Regulations Would Have A Direct Negative Impact On Every Individual Who Uses the Internet

Net neutrality is the idea that all internet service providers should give all users equal access to bandwidth, and ISPs cannot favor one websites connection over another. 

Under the net neutrality policy currently in place, service providers are unable to throttle service or give prioritized service to companies or individuals pay a premium for this priority. Let's consider that we are looking at 2 different web based services,  in this case we will use YouTube and Netflix. Both services rely on ISPs because the platforms are centered around website access.  If the current regulation around net neutrality is changed, then the ISPs could give priority to companies and websites that pay for the privilege, and intentionally slow the speed of websites that don't pay a premium for their website. If YouTube decided that they would enter into a contract with the ISPs to receive prioritized service, then the users trying to access YouTube would be able to connect quickly. Let's pretend that Netflix refused to pay the premium price. This would make attempting to access Netflix online increasingly slow and difficult for the users, because the ISPs would only allot minimum bandwidth to the platform because "they haven't payed for it". Allowing this type of behavior will undeniably lead to negative consequences for all members of society. 

Since first appearing in 2007 the regulations have been in support of net neutrality, but the new Chairmen of the FCC may have a different opinion.

President Donald Trump named Ajit Pai as the new Chairmen of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), and many have already been very vocal about their concerns for the future of net neutrality under the new Chairman. Due to many past statements Pai has made, it is likely he will reduce regulation and potentially leave it up to the service providers. Every Time that net neutrality legislation has been voted so far there has been a Democrat Chairmen, who had always taken a strong stance in support of net neutrality. With a pro-business Chairmen and a republican controlled senate, the possibility of the reduction or elimination of regulations regarding ISPs' behavior becomes a dangerous reality. In 2015, Pai voted against the "Open Internet Order" claiming it was "trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.". The reason that this isn't an issue currently is due to the regulations and limitations placed on ISPs that make it a crime to engage in throttling or prioritizing. 

Taking a pro-business stance is one thing, but deregulating an existing oligopoly market will have profound consequences.

When it comes to ISPs there are currently a select few mass corporations that control over 80% of the market. This would definitely lead the internet service market to be considered an oligopoly due to the relative lack of competition that is currently present. The motives behind prioritization and throttling are completely founded in greed. The ISPs currently charge a rate that they deem fair, and are very profitable at the current rate. If ISPs were able to prioritize no extra service would be provided beyond what they provide now, it would simply allow for the service providers to distribute the bandwidth in greedy and unjust way. If an individual is starting a small business and needs to open a website, they must make the decision on whether to pay a premium to receive an adequate amount of bandwidth or to pay a reduced price but not always have the necessary bandwidth that is required. If the business decides that they would be better suited paying the reduced rate, then they face the serious risk of not having the necessary speeds and bandwidth that is needed for the site be used normally by customers, which would in turn deter many customers and potential customers from visiting the site. 

If a company such as Netflix is required to pay a premium price for the necessary speed, it will likely the users who will wind up paying for the additional costs. 

When we look at platforms such as Netflix and YouTube, the potential premium that firms of this size would be required to pay could easily be in the 10's of millions of dollars. The rise of the input costs incurred by these firms will likely cause the firms to begin to charge a higher price to their consumers. This would create an environment in which nearly any major company or platform would be forced to pay the premium price, because if they refused then they would be at a direct disadvantage compared to their competitors.  Eliminating the current regulations would significantly raise the barrier to entry for small firms and even individuals. 

The most profound thing to remember when discussing net neutrality is simply that the service providers are already making a steady and handsome profit, and the lifting of regulations would cause their revenue and profits to soar while their costs remain the same. Nothing additional is given by the ISPs when they charge a premium, they are simply providing your customers with the speed and bandwidth that they are currently receiving. The techniques of prioritization and throttling only punish the firms who choose not to pay the premium prices. 

Imagine the consequences that prioritization could have on bitcoin and other cryptocurrency applications.

A website such as Blockchain.info could be significantally affected by this type of deregulation. Even though the site itself run by any of the involved ISPs, the ISPs will implement prioritization by the means of slowing down the user of the sites connections. If the website wasn't able to pay the premium fee, then the users of that site would have a harder time accessing the site because of their intentionally allotted minimal bandwidth. Although it may not directly affect aspects such as transaction speed, it would increase the time needed to load the site and to load new aspects of the site and therefore drastically increase transaction times. Fast speed is absolutely vital on Bitcoin and alt-coin exchanges, and many of the large automated traders wouldn't be affected, the small traders or investors would have a potential to be placed at a significant direct disadvantage due to the slow load and refresh speeds they experience on the site. 

Elon Musk's aspirations for a global internet have never been so important. 

In November of 2016, Elon Musk filed requests with the FCC to place over 4,000 new satellites into orbit for the purpose of a wireless internet that has global coverage. If such a system were implemented the advantages of a greater global access to internet are extremely clear. If the net neutrality regulation is eliminated, then the incentive for a global satellite based internet will be greater than ever. The consequences that would occur following ISPs prioritizing and throttling may finally be enough to make the majority of people see the potential dangers and problems with a controlled internet. The fundamental reason that the internet has been such a powerful force since its creation is largely due to the fact that on the internet all users are equal. Whether you live in the US or live in South America, you have an equal access to information and knowledge. On the internet an individual's perception is based upon their contributions and input, no matter who they are. 

Thank you for reading and I really hope you enjoyed this post! Please consider giving me a follow if you enjoyed this post and would like to see further posts on this topic. Please feel free to leave any feedback, comments, or discussions below. 

image sources: 1-2-3

sources: http://www.businessinsider.com/ajit-pai-fcc-net-neutrality-trump-what-to-expect-2017-2/#trusting-the-incumbents-with-net-neutrality-1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/01/what-trumps-new-fcc-chairman-thinks-about-net-neutrality/?utm_term=.42f7cd6846e9