Podcast | Are we close to the 'death of the Internet as we know it'?

DEATH OF THE INTERNET? A CLOSER LOOK AT NET NEUTRALITY

A Few of Our Favourite Things: The Internet and Free Speech

If you were to ask me which human inventions have made the greatest impact in my life, the answers would be quick to come and fairly simple – pizza, airplanes, and the ability to order a pizza without having to move an inch. So well, the internet. The internet has been the platform for great personal and political expression – the MeToo movement and with it, hopefully, the slow disassembling of the patriarchy; the Arab Spring; increasing awareness about mental health; calls to action against the discrimination of various disenfranchised and marginalised communities including racial and sexual minorities... have all benefitted from the metaphorical water cooler that is the internet in the small village the world has now come to be. But, we are also human, and sometimes I feel we do not deserve to have good things, because just as community-building the internet has been, it has also been the place to foster some of our basest instincts – online sex trafficking, bullying, #FakeNews, political interference by rogue entities into the democratic systems of many countries, the rise of cyberterrorism and the ensuing copycat models seen in as latest an attack as the one we saw in Toronto when a truck driver mowed down dozens of people. If the internet has brought people together for the good, in the process, and perhaps inevitably, it has also brought together people and communities up to no good. In this age of digital community building, it is easier for birds of a feather to flock together, but beware, there be vultures too.

Terrible elements and unsavoury comments notwithstanding, and perhaps because of them, the internet is a great level-playing field. Everybody gets to have a say – and while you may cock a snook at the terrible comments you see on 4chan or Reddit or that thing I do not understand – Twitter, what you are seeing is egalitarianism at work, and perhaps the best expression of free speech. You’ve got to hand it to the internet – in the eyes of the internet, we are all the same. But that notion appears like it is in danger. ACLU – the American Civil Liberties Union – is one of the foremost organisations that fight to defend the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. ACLU brought the first case about free speech on the internet, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared speech on the Internet equally worthy of the First Amendment’s historical protections. In that case, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court held that the government can no more restrict a person’s access to words or images on the Internet than it can snatch a book out of someone’s hands or cover up a nude statue in a museum.

I Live Under A Rock. So. What is Net Neutrality?

In the same breath as free speech comes the other term we are discussing today – net neutrality. As the ACLU describes it, “Net neutrality is the founding principle of the internet. It is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) must treat online data equally, by not discriminating based on user or content. It is essential to the free, open internet that we know and love. Without equal access to the internet, we lose our rights to be heard and to hear others.”

Essentially, net neutrality is the concept of online non-discrimination. It is the principle that consumers and citizens should be free to get access to—or to provide—the Internet content and services they wish, and that consumer access should not be regulated based on the nature or source of that content or service. Information providers—which may be websites, online services, etc., and who may be affiliated with traditional commercial enterprises but who also may be individual citizens, libraries, schools, or non-profit entities—should have essentially the same quality of access to distribute their offerings. "Pipe" owners (carriers) should not be allowed to charge some information providers more money for the same pipes, or establish exclusive deals that relegate everyone else (including small non-commercial or start-up entities) to an Internet "slow lane." This principle should hold true even when a broadband provider is providing Internet carriage to a competitor. Like I said, this principle of non-discrimination is integral to the idea of the idea of the internet. What “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” is to France (and Haiti), Net Neutrality is to the land of Internet.

But, today, net neutrality is under threat.

In 2015, under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission – the FCC – classified ISPs as “common carriers,” which gave the FCC the power to prohibit ISPs from halting, slowing, or otherwise tampering with the transmission of data online. ISPs then challenged the law in federal court as a violation of their constitutional rights — ACLU and its allies, along with the government, joined hands together to successfully argue that net neutrality rules preserve and protect individual free speech rights rather than harm them. Under Donald Trump, many things are changing – the Overton Window is on such a constant overhaul that we seem to be losing perspective of what is considered normal and what is allowed in polite social discourse. One of the things undergoing change is the FCC, and well, the Internet as we know it. Under the leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai, the Trump era FCC is considering a rollback of those very protections and civil liberties.

In May 2016, the FCC proposed a rule that would rescind the “common carrier” classification. That would give a few large corporations the authority to control access to the internet, and it would open the way to pay-to-play “fast lanes” for those who can afford it. This prioritisation – or in some cases, the prevention of some opinions over others – is the antithesis of the spirit of the free internet, and indeed free speech.

Without Net Neutrality, your Internet Service Provider could essentially block you from accessing any website they didn’t want you to access. It would also allow your ISP to intentionally slow down or cut off access to websites you frequent, forcing you to pay an additional fee if you want to continue using them. I get to visit the websites I want to, read the content I like to, watch the stuff – inspiring to disgusting – I feel so compelled to because of net neutrality.

Why are we talking about Net Neutrality now?

Because it is on life support with little chance of resuscitation in America.

Circa December 2017, enter a man we have spoken about before – Ajit Pai. He is not a doctor, which is surprising. A lawyer; close enough. In December 2017 the FCC, under its Chairman Ajit Pai, voted to repeal net neutrality, signalling the end of the open internet as we know it. The decision was obviously controversial at the time, and no surprise, continues to be so even now. The vote was just the first step toward repeal. To enact the change, the FCC would have to officially list the ruling and provide a timeline for it. And that listing came in February and, now we're even closer to wearing black at Mr. Net Neutrality's funeral. The listing noted the repeal's effective date as April 23, but there's a big asterisk attached to it. For the most impactful aspects of the repeal to come into effect, Americans have to wait for one more administrative step. “So... it might not happen after all? Yay, I am throwing a party!” you say? Then I will be Liz Lemon and say, “Shut it down”. The next step is merely an administrative procedural step — a review by the Office of Management and Budget — and then, it’s time to pull the plug. Rest in peace. Amen.

But but but... what was the FCC voting on? The FCC voted on something called the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which concerned the repeal of Title II protection for net neutrality.

I said a bunch of things there that might be confusing. Or not, if you too are a student at the John Oliver University. If you are not, let me break it down for you.

Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 defines a type of company called a ‘common carrier’ as, among other things, "any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio." It explicitly classifies internet service providers (ISPs) as telecommunications companies, meaning they’re essentially classified as utilities and subject to the same regulations that other telecommunication companies — also classified as utilities — must abide by. That basic regulatory standard is what people are referring to when they talk about net neutrality. Title II was first applied to ISPs in 2015, after a hard-won fight by internet activists.

Vox Editorial explains to us that, “Placing ISPs under Title II was the only legal way — barring the unlikely introduction and passage of Congressional legislation instituting complicated new regulatory procedures — in which these companies could be regulated. Now that the FCC has repealed Title II classification for ISPs, the ISPs will essentially be unregulated.”

In the Obama period Open Internet Era – I speak of it like it was some halcyon era from centuries ago; no, it really was just less than two years ago, ayyo! – Title II, specifically in one Section 202 said, and I paraphrase here – because we are not all lawyers – that anyone providing a communication service can't discriminate against, or show favour toward, any of its customers.

Now this whole repeal exercise blows that to outer space, leaving room open for ISPs to prioritise access to whichever websites they favour, based on whatever whim they might have to favouring them – money, why euphemise it, it is money. But just to play devil’s advocate, over to Rakesh.

But but but... What is the problem if Internet Service Providers are not regulated?

Have you even been listening? Deep breath. Let me break it down.

ISPs were classified under Title II as utility companies, which meant, they had to treat the internet like every other utility. Just like your gas or water or electricity or phone utilities, they couldn’t cut it off at will or determine how much any one person received the internet based on how much they were willing to pay. The simple, elegant idea was that the internet should be a public service that everyone has a right to use. Not a privilege, but a right. And that regulating ISPs like utilities would prevent them from hijacking or monopolising that access.

I will play Devil’s Advocate here, and pose the question that a lot of people who are anti-net neutrality go on to pose: The internet is just another product, and in a free market system, should it not be that competition over who gets to sell you that product will ensure accountability, even if only for the ISP to save its own backside?

Now let me take of the Devil’s Advocate robes and explain to you why that is a problematic way of thinking. As far as the internet is concerned, there really isn’t a free and open market. In the States, there is no such thing as real competition among ISPs because it was driven down years ago because of the consolidated nature of the internet broadband infrastructure, which has typically been owned by major corporations, and in the process shut out local ISP competitors.

Many people living in the States don’t really have much of a choice about which internet service provider they are going to pay to get access, because that access has already been monopolised by a handful of powerful companies. As many as 50 million households in the US, have just one item on the menu as far as dining out on ISPs is concerned. And now with the repeal of Title II, they have free reign to behave like the giant corporate monopolies they are. Where net neutrality ensured the preservation of what’s been dubbed “the open internet,” its repeal will open the door for ISPs to create what CNN has called “an internet of the elite.”

Think of it this way – you have a cable company, and based on the plan and how much money you have paid them, you get some channels and you don’t get some others. It is so in America too. Just like most of us hate cable companies here in India, so do they, and overwhelmingly so! In the Harris Reputation Quotient poll, cable companies Comcast and Dish Network were not exactly gold medal winners. In fact, they ranked dead last. With ISPs being unregulated, that means, it’s potentially the same situation when it comes to your favourite websites. Or websites whose content is niche and only a few use. The ISP can turn around and say, “Oh you really can’t live without websitexyz.com, I see, so from now on, you are going to have to pay for it!” Or, “Oh, we at this company do not particularly like this website, so you are not going to get henceforth. Oh but you still want it, then pay for it!” The bottomline is, just like with cable companies, where only the customer who pays the most gets the most, so it may well become with the internet. Added to that is the larger problem of censorship. My pattern of content consumption, if is found unpalatable by the overlords giving me the gift of the internet, could simply be declared No Longer Available.

That sounds pretty bad... What will my American friends’ internet look like?

How rich are your American friends? That’s what might decide what their internet might look like. Like that Baai from Channel [V] – rest in peace – ISPs in America, unregulated as they are, can finally say “Itna paisa mein itnaich milenga”. The cable company analogy works perfectly here. For $5, you get WhatsApp and Twitter and Facebook. For $10, you get to add a few extra, and so on, and if you give away the top bucks, YOU GET EVERYTHING! As it is now, that is simply not the case. You have the internet – that means you get everything.

One of the major reasons why we like some websites over others, as research has shown even in India, is how quickly we can load them and how fast they can buffer content. ISPs now will also be able to control how quickly you’re served these pages, how quickly you can download and upload things, and in what contexts you can access which websites, depending on how much money you pay them. Pay 5 bucks, and you get 90s level speeds; pay a hundred, and we’re in business. They’ll be able to charge you more to access sites you currently visit for free, cap how much data you’re allowed to use, redirect you from the website you want to access to another one of their choice because well, they have an agreement (money, I mean) with that other company. Without regulation, they can even block you from being able to access apps, products, and information offered by their competitors or other companies they don’t like for whatever reason.

They can even block you from being able to access information on certain topics, news events, or issues they don’t want you to know about. Think of what a huge problem that is – one of the great civilian-led movements of our times was the Arab Spring and much of its success was due to mobilisation of people by way of spreading information about it. USING THE INTERNET!

I do not know if I read too much Orwell in my spare time as a child, but I cannot shake of the feeling that all these are ingredients being quietly assembled for a dish they call dystopia. Served very very cold.

While these aspects are very concerning and do affect the daily lives of my American friends, what is the bigger picture? What really is at stake here if we take a step back and get a cloud view?

Tell me about the bigger picture – what is at stake besides not being able to see a website or three?

As usual, the worst hit will be women, minorities, people who live in rural areas, and young and small businesses. Without an open internet, people who have been historically marginalised and disenfranchised will continue to be so. Their voices which are already muffled and along the sidelines will be further muted and driven away from the mainstream by larger, richer voices who can pay to have their presence seen and heard. The Hill, once wrote that, “Good broadband is a small town’s lifeline out of geographic isolation, its connection to business software and services, and its conduit for exporting homegrown ideas and products.” Without regulations mandatorily requiring ISPs to develop infrastructure in rural and underserved areas, they simply do not have an incentive to do so. But let’s take a step further back and talk about the big ticket items that an average American might not feel the pinch of immediately, but because of whom the country will suffer in the long run:

1. Freedom of the press – and in these days of rampant fake news affecting democracy at the very highest levels, I cannot possibly emphasise this enough. If I wanted to start a media house about three decades ago in the US, I could simply not have done it on my own. There were far too many barriers to entry. But with the open internet, anyone can start a news site and publish articles or photos or videos without having to worry about whether people can see them. Sure, that also leads to a glut of websites which carry false information or hateful information or propaganda. But that is freedom of speech at work. I might not like what you are saying, but I will fight till my last breath your right to do so. Now, without net neutrality, ISPs can block or slow down news sites for any reason, be it commercial or ideological. For example, Comcast could block NYTimes.com or slow it to a crawl because the online newspaper published an op-ed in favor of net neutrality or even reported something negative about Comcast. For another example, another news website might have refused to pay Comcast, and so Comcast could prevent it from being accessed by its subscribers.

2. Democracy – It is a matter of public record that ISPs contribute significant amounts of money to various political candidates. The Center for Responsive Politics, an independent, non-partisan non-profit research group that tracks money in US politics and its effect on elections and public policy, prepared data that were published on The Verge where it is documented that telecommunications providers – including the big three that is Comcast, AT&T and Verizon – gave as much as 101 million dollars to sitting members of Congress and their leadership PACs, between 1989 and 2017.

This isn’t alarming per se. Contributions have been made by all sorts of companies. What is alarming is the fact that now in the era of no regulation, ISPs may choose to block or slow down the campaign page of a candidate or party that they are not in favour of over one they are in favour of! Perhaps more insidiously – and sinisterly – they may choose to block government websites providing information such as polling locations and registration forms. In this way, they can even impact voter turnout. We have all heard of ways in which voter suppression takes place in various parts of America. The demographic data of ISP consumers are available to them, and based on the consumers’ race, political leanings, gender, sexual orientation etc, it is conceivable that the ISP, in keeping with its own political agenda, may interfere in the process of free and fair elections.

3. Choice and Association – Let’s say your VOIP of choice has always been Skype. But what if your ISP signs an exclusive deal with Google making Hangouts your only option? Again, I am only referencing what has already happened in the past. In 2009, AT&T blocked iPhones from making Skype calls on its mobile network, but relented under pressure from the FCC. In 2012, the company also blocked Apple FaceTime on the iPhone. This constriction of choice could extend to nearly every aspect of your life – from where you buy shoes to what email platform you use to what online university you might want to enrol in to which streaming service you want to use to what kind of hobby group you might want to belong to online.

4. Freedom to start your own business - Back in the day, if you wanted to open a shop in some area, you had to give hafta to the local thug. But what if your shop’s location is not physical and only digital? What if you are a young and poor company? What then? That’s what we discuss next. With Rakesh.

Won’t young and poor companies be affected if ISPs turn stepmotherly and prioritise the richer companies out there?

Yes, they do! I have already alluded to this before, but ISPs will be able to exert their power not just over individual consumers, but over companies, as well. A term we have been hearing a lot in relation to this is the “internet fast lane” — in which an ISP can force a company to pay more for faster access for readers or users like you and me to its websites and services. Big corporations can afford this. And in fact, some of them already paid the premium it took before the Open Internet Era was ushered in and upheld during the Obama administration.

Example? Netflix. During prime time, Netflix traffic accounts for roughly 30 percent of all internet traffic, with YouTube in second place at roughly 20 percent, according to a November 2013 report by Canadian internet-monitoring firm Sandvine. In a landmark decision, Netflix had agreed to pay Comcast to ensure smooth Internet streaming services to Comcast subscribers. That deal already impacted streaming quality for Netflix customers using Comcast, who saw a 65% speed increase between January and April 2014, according to Netflix.

Do smaller companies and websites have Netflix-like money to make sure they are prioritised? No. Will they be affected by the lack of net neutrality? A huge yes.

We already have a good idea of how these scenarios might play out, because in the era before net neutrality existed, ISPs tried instituting all of them. I do not have the time to mention by name each report, but major news and media houses including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wired, The Verge, Save The Internet, among many others, have reported instances of jacked-up fees, forced redirection, content-blocking, software-blocking, website-blocking, competitor-blocking, lots of app-blocking, data-capping, and censorship of controversial subjects. That last one – censorship of controversial subjects – is perhaps the most troubling of all to me, personally. In that instance, Verizon had blocked a Pro-Choice, abortion rights group from sending text messages to its supporters. Sorry, I suddenly had flashbacks of The Handmaid’s Tale.

Like I said earlier, if bandwidth-providers that is the ISPs start acting like bouncers at a club and ask for an access fee just to have websites appear to their customers, you are nipping innovation in the bud, and essentially not letting the next Google or Netflix get off the ground. Real innovation online doesn't come from ISPs, who have been providing consumers with plenty of bandwidth despite net neutrality rules, but from companies that use the internet to deliver information and services. Google and Netflix changed the world because they were able to reach billions of people without paying for an ISP protection racket.

Ajit Pai has argued that, because ISPs didn't impose pay-to-play policies prior to the 2015 regulations or the Open Era, they can be counted on to do the right thing now. A, that did not always happen like I have said before. And B, that's like saying that we should close the local health department and fire all its inspectors since none of the restaurants has been caught spreading typhoid lately.

If it seems like I am engaging in speculative fiction and making only dire predictions, I am sorry, I do not know how else to put it – but all of this has already happened. The reason so many people fought hard for net neutrality was simply because there already existed precedent to tell us about the path a lack of net neutrality leads us down. It all comes from a place of having already been there.

All of this has convinced me that Net Neutrality is super essential, but who is actually opposed to it?

It’s a simple answer: the Internet Service Providers, that’s who.

It is one of the few bipartisan issues in America where there seems to be consensus. I can only think of love of puppies, sunshine, and pizza to be the other cases. Republican or Democrat; urban or rural; white or black, they all seem to agree that Net Neutrality is a Good Thing.

According to Vox, over the last nine years, Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T have collectively spent over half a billion dollars lobbying the FCC to end regulatory oversight, and especially to block or repeal net neutrality. Their efforts found a loyal lackey in the form of Ajit Pai, who had previously worked at Verizon himself. He was an Obama era appointee at the FCC, and was elevated to Chairman by Trump. Apparently he is not DTF – Down To Free, open internet, that is. He has a history of not being down with net neutrality. In 2015, he voted against the net neutrality ruling as a minority member of the FCC, and called it a “massive intrusion in the internet economy.” He has also argued consistently that investment in the internet decreases with net neutrality in effect, and has chosen to ignore the hard evidence presented to the contrary.

Since the FCC began the repeal process last May, it has invited comments from the general public – a provision that was used to great effect by John Oliver who urged every living creature that uses the internet to go drop a stinker in the Comments section of the FCC. And rise to the occasion they did. Millions of comments later, Pai seems unswayed and unbent, even though he is legally required to seriously consider the voice of the public. Sure, there were spambots producing duplicate comments from fake or stolen identities, and in the zealousness of advocacy groups to somehow have their voices heard, but it turned out to be a bit of a self-goal, as Pai decided these comments would be rejected. The fact though was that of the unique comments received, 99% percent were pro net neutrality and anti repeal, as reported by Ars Technica.

In a case of one rotten apple spoiling the cart, the spambots gave Pai the excuse to reject the actual comments that were received.

That said, is the nerdy-looking Indian-American lawyer with a coffee muf the size of his face at least going to let ISPs not act as monopolies? You cray, bro? From the looks of it, all of that seems a bit of a fever dream. But one can only hope. Actually no, no hope. There is precedent to prevent you from hoping, or dreaming.

Pai is a vocal proponent of letting ISPs self-regulate, and seems perfectly happy to ignore their contentious and often predatory history. Not only that, but the FCC is also actively preventing state consumer protection laws from taking effect regarding net neutrality. That means that once the repeal is final, the rights of states to govern themselves won’t apply to protecting net neutrality. Recode though reported that California and Washington each vowed after the vote to try to protect it anyway. This process is underway as we speak, and we will of course let you know how that turns out.

More on good old Uncle Pai. In November, he claimed that any kind of regulation stifles innovation. The Obama Era open internet, he said, and I quote, "depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation" and that, under the no regulation repeal era, "the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet."

This is clearly some classic Amar Vichitra Katha, Uncle Pai.

Just for confirmation though. Who is FOR it? Include me if that counts!

Included, thank you. And the answer is pretty much everyone. And because we like to use facts round here – a survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation and Voice of the People, a non-partisan polling organization, concluded that 83 percent of Americans do not approve of the FCC repeal proposal. Just 16 percent said they approved. Like I said earlier, this is a bipartisan issue – 3 out of 4 Republicans are opposed to it too. The FCC cast doubt on the survey results in a statement Tuesday.

The Washington Post has reported a couple other surveys too - Paul Brewer, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication, quoted another survey which also “showed that solid majorities — more than 70 percent — were opposed to letting Internet providers charge websites or streaming video services "extra for faster speeds ('fast lanes').”

But hang on, shouldn’t some website actually be regulated? Like, websites pushing sex trafficking and other terrible things?

That is true – and there is a provision for that too. And that has been in the news, now that you should ask! Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a 20-year-old communications law is the basis of the free internet as we know it. Originally, Section 230 was intended to shield tech platforms from liability for content posted by their users. It treats internet companies like libraries: A library isn’t responsible for the content of the books it carries. But the flipside of it was that it was being used to the benefit of illegal sex trafficking online, including child sex trafficking. The bills that have been recently signed into law called the FOSTA - Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, and the Senate bill, SESTA, the Stop Enabling Sex-Trafficking Act — have been hailed by advocates as a victory for sex trafficking victims.

There is a rub here. Section 230 is generally thought of as one of the most significant pieces of internet legislation ever created, and has allowed the internet to thrive on user-generated content without holding platforms and ISPs responsible for whatever those users might create. According to Vox, and I quote them here, “FOSTA-SESTA creates an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for prostitution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms. Because of Section 230, courts have a clear foundation for adjudicating free speech on the internet. And, crucially, because of Section 230, website owners and server hosts aren’t constantly mired in endless lawsuits because someone said something inflammatory on one of their sites.”

So, yes, we should all aim to prevent content that relates to sex trafficking anywhere but one of the FOSTA-SESTA side effects is that websites are pressured into deleting content, whether or not it has anything to do with sex work. The corollary to FOSTA-SESTA is that there might be further erosion of internet safe harbour protection.

It is a double-edged sword and requires much greater discussion, but suffice to say that yes the FOSTA-SESTA Bill may help sex trafficking victims, but also – perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not – poses a huge question on the concept of free speech on the internet and the responsibility of content hosting platforms to vigilantly self-censor lest they exposed to expensive law suits, or worse, a complete ban.

What next now?

Supporters of Net neutrality have filed lawsuits to get back to the 2015 rules. Many tech companies, including Vimeo, Mozilla, Kickstarter, Foursquare and Etsy, in addition to several state attorneys general, have launched lawsuits against the FCC to preserve net neutrality rules.

They believe that the FCC’s decision to change the classification of broadband and to get rid of the rules violates the Administrative Procedure Act, calling it "arbitrary and capricious."

CNET has reported that, “States are also taking matters into their own hands. More than two dozen states, including California, New York, Connecticut and Maryland, are considering legislation to reinstate net neutrality rules within their borders. Earlier this year, Washington became the first state to sign such legislation into law. Governors in several states, including New Jersey and Montana, have signed executive orders requiring ISPs that do business with the state to adhere to net neutrality principles.”

Is Republican-led Congress likely to intervene and change things? Probably not. CNN reported that, “Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee and chair of the House Communications and Technology subcommittee, has proposed a bill that prohibits internet providers from blocking and throttling content but doesn't address whether ISPs can create fast lanes of traffic for sites willing to pay.” She likened the fast lane policy – that is buying in to have your website appear faster and everywhere – to signing up for a TSA precheck at airports, suggesting it was a matter of convenience. But unfortunately, it’s young companies with no money, at stake here, and they cannot all afford to pay in to be on the fast lane.

Can a Democrat-led FCC change things if Trump is ousted come 2020? Possibly, but they will have to go through the same rule-making process. But this Tughlaq-style flipflopping from one set of rules is not good for anyone – most of all, the consumer. Where does India fit into all of this? We’ll find out. Over to Rakesh.

Okay this is all great – but I live in India, and how does this affect me?

As of now, not in any significant way. But. India isn’t alien to the subject of net neutrality. In 2015, Facebook launched a service called Free Basics, which later became Internet.org, aimed at providing free Internet services to those who could not afford data costs. But the move ran into opposition with stand-up comedy group All India Bakchod, coming out with three videos discussing the subject of net neutrality, and specifically targeting the Facebook initiative. The video went viral, with the resultant outpouring, forcing the TRAI to act, and with the help of policy thinktanks like Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy in Delhi, the telecom regulator drafted guidelines to ban the service.

Phew. That was long. But great events call for long podcasts. It’s the future of the internet, for God’s sake! Sure. This is what is happening in America. But we in India have a terrible habit of emulating America. And unless we fight to prevent it from happening, this could well be mine and your tomorrow.

Can you imagine a world without the internet? I cannot.

Can you imagine a world where you have internet but only a limited range of options determined suitable for you by someone else? I suppose I can, but I sure as hell do not want to.