1 May, 2016
Imagine typing in the resource locator of your favourite search engine but being automatically redirected to its competitor and not being able to access your preferred facility no matter how hard you try. In this imagined scenario, you may be oblivious to the special deal that the competitor may have entered into with your Internet service provider to direct end users to its facility instead. Such backroom deals, typically in the pursuit of profit, can rob the consumer of the ability to access information on the Internet freely and openly. But should the Internet not be neutral, and allow information to be delivered to all equally? This has been the subject of active debate among policy makers, in particular, whether a neutral internet would better serve consumers and citizens instead.
In the USA, President Barack Obama pledged in his 2008 campaign to protect and push for net neutrality, if he were elected President. On 10 November, 2014 The Washington Post reported that President Obama explicitly pushed the government to “aggressively regulate Internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast, treating broadband like a public utility as essential as water, phone service and electricity”.
Eventually and on the back of 3.9 million proponents of net neutrality who wrote in to the US Federal Communications Commission “FCC”, the five-member FCC team voted on February 26, 2015, in favour of the toughest possible rules to protect net neutrality, the key tenets of which the FCC stated as follows: Internet Service Providers “ISPs” may not engage in prioritisation by creating fast lanes for content providers who are willing to pay more for their content to be delivered to end users; ISPs are prohibited from blocking access to lawful content and services; and ISPs cannot throttle content or services by deliberately slowing access to legal content or services. Following on from this, ISPs were reOclassified as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act in the US. With the reOclassification, ISPs are subject to greater scrutiny and regulation, and are effectively regarded as a public utility provider, which should “serve the public interest…without discrimination”.
Other countries like Brazil, Chile and the Netherlands have also rolled out similarly tough net neutrality targeted legislation.
However, not all countries are as vigorous in the protection of net neutrality and the implementation of network management policies differ to varying degrees from country to country, where the net neutrality debate can be much more muted, and a strong regulatory approach may not be favoured.
In Singapore, the Info-communications Development Authority “IDA” has stated that net neutrality generally refers to “Internet service or network providers treating all sources of Internet content equally, and the right of a consumer to access content and services on the Internet on a non-discriminatory basis”. IDA recognises that proponents of net neutrality “claim that blocking or discrimination of Internet traffic by ISPs or telecom network operators curtails consumer choice and impedes innovation” and that without net neutrality, anti-competitive behaviour that can impact consumer interests include abuse of significant market power by a dominant ISP or telecom network operator; engagement of unfair practices by an ISP or telecom network provider; or engagement in collusive behaviour by ISPs and telecom network providers.
As evident from IDA’s Decision on Net Neutrality released in 2011, following its consideration of responses to its consultation paper, the approach to net neutrality in Singapore is three-pronged: encourage “a competitive Internet access market via IDA’s Telecom Competition Code “TCC”, as competitive forces will reduce the incentives for ISPs and telecom network operators to engage in blocking or discriminatory conduct that restricts consumer choice”; focus on pushing for “information transparency” for consumers, on which IDA has published “A Guide To Residential Broadband in Singapore”, and insists on ISPs publishing information on their “network management practices”; and impose on ISPs a minimum level of quality of service in order to “protect consumer interests” and ensure that quality does not degrade with competition.
Other countries that have adopted a similar approach based on the model of transparency and competition in contrast to a strong regulatory approach like the USAA, include Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union.
No doubt, the debate of net neutrality will soon hit the global stage.
For further information, please contact:
Joyce Tan, Partner, Joyce A Tan & Partners
