“The Trump administration deals another blow to the legacy of Barack Obama and dismantles it net neutrality”, this is a summary of what can be read in the headlines of the first agencies released after last night's vote by the FCC (Federal communications commission) chaired by Ajit Pai. A vote preceded by online protests and street demonstrations, the outcome of which, very political, was rather certain: three votes in favor (of the Republican commissioners) and two against (Democrats).
"The Trump administration supports the Federal Communications Commission's decision, but as it always has, it supports and always will support a free and just internet," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders immediately said, but statements were made soon after. contrary officers.
The attorney general of the state of New York, Eric Schneiderman, has announced a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, defining "illegal the abolition of the rules wanted by Barack Obama in 2015 on net neutrality". Netflix instead announces the beginning of a long legal battle. And then Amazon, Facebook and Google, which confirms its commitment "in net neutrality policies, which enjoy public support, have been approved by the courts and work well for the internet economy".
All this does not come as a surprise, Silicon Valley and the web giants had announced battle, and it will be. And the courts will evaluate what they will be called to judge, but in fact a new course starts today, that of the two-speed web, which sees the large telecommunications companies, such as At&t, Comcast and Verizon, taking a leading role again, which instead they have always opposed Obama's Net Neutrality and the "heavy hand" of the federal government which, in fact, will no longer be involved in regulating high-speed internet services.
Providers will be required to be transparent in the presentation of offers and the quality will vary depending on how much the customer will pay. Obviously, we cannot know the results of this new regulation right now, but what I think is important is that it is not a question of the death of web freedom, as it is commented by many.
What I have been saying for years is that the network, to be truly neutral, must guarantee the entire world population the possibility of accessing all freely distributed contents. But, at the same time, I don't think at all that all content should receive the same technological treatment. This is for obvious reasons related to the quality and urgency of the information, many of which are false and unverified (just think of fake news) which risk circulating indiscriminately and in many cases extremely harmful. Not all contents that are placed on the net have the same value or the same urgency.
The problem undeniably exists. Now that the FCC has changed direction, what we can expect is that telecom operators do their part by increasing their investments in a more capable and secure network on the one hand, and that Pai and the Commission he chairs correctly address the technological approach to the network.
The new rules bring with them new and fundamental needs which the Regulatory Authorities will have to deal with urgently. Firstly, discrimination by network operators must be avoided in every way from now on: access and transport of content shall be offered to all content providers equally avoiding that one or more operators can privilege their own contents.
Another element to take into consideration is that of content enhancement. A key point, on which we will have to work hard in the coming years to try to guarantee a correct vision of the present, but also of the past. Why it is unthinkable that information is prioritized exclusively on the basis of rules aimed at generating profit or advertising.
And finally, the control of “fake news”, which proliferate on the internet also, unfortunately, by virtue of the free circulation and amplification they can count on.
These are not impossible challenges, for example in Germany there is an independent external company, called Correctiv, which specializes in checking the veracity of information circulating on the net and which, in case of false information, asks the content provider to cancel the news. It is an approach that can be applied not only to information fake, but also to sensitive, pornographic or particularly violent content.
In conclusion a regulatory solution that makes it possible to prioritize the transport of certain content is an opportunity to better manage the large network. If there will be a more effective and efficient use of the network, it will be possible to encourage investments in those new generation networks for the benefit of the entire population. The problem becomes how to guarantee that the proliferation of contents on the net does not come at the expense of the truthfulness and quality of the information, essential elements for any democratic system.
Differentiating the quality of service based on what each individual user is willing to pay is an accepted principle in any industry.
I don't see why it shouldn't work for the network as well.
The real risk, however, is precisely that there is someone who can afford to go and review the more or less lawful contents according to some of their own criteria.
This is the real risk.