BLUF: The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) newly proposed “Preventing Digital Discrimination Order” threatens the liberty of the internet ecosystem through a series of regulatory impositions, which could curb innovation, impede internet access, and jeopardize consumer freedom.
OSINT: Not all forms of power seizure are as grand and noticeable as the storming of the Bastille. Some are bureaucrat-led, buried in jargon, and disguised as progress for the collective good. An instance is the impending vote on the comprehensive “Preventing Digital Discrimination Order” by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This 200-page order proposes a plethora of restrictions that could fundamentally transform the internet.
Derived from section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 2021, the order was intended to direct federal funds towards improving the United States’ internet infrastructure. However, the impending vote risks endowing the FCC with substantial control over internet infrastructure, potentially justified by appeals to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The primary concern is the power to supervise and regulate internet service providers, guided by vague ideas of equity. Alarmingly, it does not simply target outright discrimination; it also focuses on “disparate outcomes”. This means that any internet infrastructure not resulting in perfect equity could face the United States government’s wrath.
If passed, this marks the first occasion that the FCC would obtain the power to review various aspects of Internet Service Providers’ service termination policies, including customer credit usage, account history, credit checks, and account termination.
Further concern comes from industry experts and FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. They warn that as well as stifling innovation and limiting access to the internet, this plan grants the “administrative state effective control of all internet services and infrastructure,” potentially overwhelming the broadband industry, diminishing investment and obstructing broadband accessibility. All in pursuit of an elusive ideal of equity.
A beacon of hope lies in that disparate impact rules, the backbone of this power grab, have previously been struck down by the Supreme Court. This suggests there will be immediate legal action to challenge these rules.
RIGHT: Libertarian Constitutionalists might view this situation as an infringement on individual liberties and disruption of the free market, where supposed government stewardship veers towards meddling. They may argue that government bodies shouldn’t dictate internet service providers’ operational details, and that the market force, unhindered by heavy-handed regulation, offers the best path forward for technological progress and consumer good.
LEFT: On the other hand, Democrats with a national socialist perspective might view the proposed FCC power as a necessary response to systemic discrimination within the sector. They could see this move as a means of ensuring equal access to online resources and services, defending the disadvantaged, and making sure that no individual or group is unfairly deprived of online opportunities.
AI: An AI perspective emphasizes the significant potential impact on the internet ecosystem. This deeply complex issue involves balancing issues of equity, access, and control, with potential ramifications for innovation, investment, and the consumer experience. There’s a risk that broad and vaguely defined regulations may inadvertently stifle innovation, increase costs for consumers, and have unanticipated outcomes in the technological landscape. Concerted action is needed across industries and government entities to ensure that steps taken uphold the benefits of internet freedom while addressing legitimate equity concerns.