James 1

Brian James
CST 300 Writing Lab
10/12/2019

Should Network Neutrality Regulations Exist on 5G Networks?

Network neutrality (net neutrality) is the idea that all internet communications will be

treated equally. Tim Wu coined the phrase in 2003 by saying, “The promotion of network

neutrality is no different than the challenge of promoting fair evolutionary competition in any

privately-owned environment, whether a telephone network, operating system, or even a retail

store.” (Wu, 2003). Today, many consumers and digital content providers insist that companies

who provide access on 4G (fourth generation) cellular networks must not prioritize access to

content, websites, or platforms. However, the new 5G (fifth generation) technology is going to

eventually become the standard, and critics of net neutrality claim that the practice may not be

necessary when 5G takes over.

Background

Since the beginning of the world wide web, consumers, content providers, and internet

service providers (ISP) have been thinking of ways to increase their own capabilities or create a

level playing field. In the United States, the first major case that created net neutrality concerns

involved a North Carolina-based telephone company called Madison River Communications. In

this case, Madison River was caught blocking voice over internet protocol (VoIP) telephone calls

originating from Vonage that traversed their network. The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) stepped in and ordered Madison River to stop port-blocking Vonage VoIP

calls and ordered them to pay a fine, citing sections of the Communications Act of 1934

(Madison River Communications, 2005). Interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934

promote two possible stances on net neutrality. The Act classifies internet as either a Title I
 James 2

information service or a Title II common carrier service (Communications Act of 1934, 1934).

Common carrier services include public utilities, public transportation, or freight forwarding.

Ten years passed before the FCC under President Barak Obama would revisit issues surrounding

net neutrality and change how internet services are classified. In 2015, internet service would be

reclassified from a Title I “enhanced information service” to a Title II “common carrier” service

in an FCC order named “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet” (Protecting and Promoting

the Open Internet, 2015). The intention of this order was to promote an open internet policy and

eliminate discrimination of data transfers by stopping or slowing them down. Title II

classification means that internet services provided by any ISP would be classified in the same

manner that telephone services are classified. This order did not last long, because President

Donald Trump appointed Ajit Pai as FCC chairman. Pai is in favor of deregulation. In 2017, the

FCC decided to reverse its 2015 order and reclassified internet service as Title I of the

Communications Act of 1934 (Restoring Internet Freedom, 2018). This reversal was intended to

inspire new investment and development of broadband service that had dropped due to net

neutrality regulations. In 2019, Congress has become involved again. They pushed a new bill

that passed the House of Representatives called, “Save the Internet Act of 2019,” which would

basically reverse the order given by “Restoring Internet Freedom,” (H.R.1644 - Save the Internet

Act of 2019, 2019). After clearing the House, the bill must also pass the Senate and then get

signed by the President. The bill is not expected to pass the Senate or the President’s desk since

Republican party members in those institutions favor the current FCC order that abolishes

regulations (Romm & Fung, 2019). Deciding on which side of the net neutrality debate a person

stands really depends on the needs of the individual. Should internet access provided by ISP’s

be regulated for network neutrality when 5G networks arrive?

 James 3

Stakeholders

As stakeholders in this debate, the primary internet service providers like Comcast and

Verizon as well as a few network hardware vendors like Cisco and Juniper Networks stand

against network neutrality. Deregulation of internet services is a claim of value, as the ISP’s

could reclaim money from expensive investments of infrastructure including the rollout of

internet access points in low income communities that need it. Consumers would benefit from

this type of tradeoff, because they are getting some measurable benefits in exchange for the

additional compensation of the content providers to the ISP’s. There is also a claim of value

with allowing the ISP’s to increase their influence. If digital content is controlled by the ISP’s,

then they believe that offensive material like pornography could be hidden from the view of

minors. Without the restrictions of net neutrality, companies like AT&T can adapt their new 5G

networks to the external environment, rather than the external environment dictating how AT&T

will do that. The term used for this is called network slicing. Net slicing is a practice of dividing

and running simultaneous and separate logical networks across a common terrestrial or wireless

band. Another important development with 5G will be self-driving automobiles will demand the

type of dedicated bandwidth afforded by 5G network slicing to eliminate any signal delay that

might cause a catastrophic accident. Both Juniper and Cisco have worked with ISP’s on past,

present, and future network improvement projects and their interest will remain with the

inclusion of 5G technology.

Regulation of 5G networks is supported by content providers and a significant portion of

consumers. Companies like Amazon and Netflix do not want ISP’s to charge them more money

to use the network and refute the idea that 5G will prevent that. They claim that when ISP’s are

not regulated, unfair business practices will occur as a result. The idea is that like public
 James 4

electricity rates, there could be a risk of price gouging and throttling of internet speeds.

Throttling is the practice of deliberately slowing down an internet connection unless the end user

pays more money to increase speed. If the internet is regulated through net neutrality laws and

orders, then common carriers can be controlled through government intervention. This

regulation will also help any new startup companies that wish to compete with established

content providers since all content providers will be using a level playing field in terms of

bandwidth.

Competing Utilitarian Frameworks

Those Against Net Neutrality

The ISP’s and some network hardware manufacturers are against net neutrality on 5G

mainly due to benefits of network slicing. They are making the claim that ISP’s will commit acts

of good that benefit the most people and have the farthest-reaching, positive effects. Such a

perspective on ethics is called utilitarianism. A subcomponent of this theory, act utilitarianism,

uses the principle of utility. This was developed by classic theorist Jeremy Bentham (1748-

1832). Bentham believed that one should not only consider what an act will do to oneself, but

also analyze the extent that the act can affect others. The act should maximize utility for good

delivered to the most people at the same time.

The ISP’s can make a claim of value for their benevolent acts on network infrastructure.

The FCC agrees, and has stated that there was nothing wrong with the internet in 2015 when they

implemented regulations which led to a 5.6 percent drop in broadband development (Restoring

Internet Freedom, 2018). With chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom Order

can provide consumer protections against ISP’s if they are cheating. For example, there are now

disclosure websites to find out what kind of business practice an ISP has been engaged in. The
 James 5

Federal Trade Commission has been activated to assist consumers if they encounter a harmful

business practice. Since 5G networks are going to feature network slicing as a prominent

positive change in network infrastructure, this claim of value holds true for all stakeholders.

Those in favor of Net Neutrality

However, the content providers do not see the issue in the same way that the ISP’s do.

They claim that the best solution is to regulate the ISP’s to ensure fairness for all people.

Operating portions of a network for specific customer use cases should not be allowed, they say.

They are using the utilitarian ethical theory of rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism was

invented by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Unlike act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism is

focused on moral rule and how specific actions fit into moral rules. This version of utilitarianism

insists that actions should also into the moral rules. Furthermore, people should also create

moral rules that fit into overall moral codes. To maximize utility in this situation, there must be

a rules-based system that disallows potentially bad behavior.

The content providers are making a claim of policy when they say the everyone will

benefit when the ISP’s are held in check during the 5G introduction. When the ISP’s are being

regulated, then they will not be able to throttle customers, block ports, or choose winners among

industry content providers. When ISP’s have autonomy, then they can choose to only benefit a

few people while leaving most people without benefit. Without regulation, these potential

dangers are a threat to content providers, consumers’ creativity, and access to the market, which

would be in violation of the rule utilitarian ethical framework. Groups in favor of regulations see

this as generating the most utility with no negative consequences. Diverse-minded think tanks

like the Internet Society believe that net neutrality regulations do not inhibit investment and

development in network infrastructure (Net Neutrality Experts’ Roundtable Series Process

 James 6

Report, 2019). Ideologically divergent points may exist with regulations, but proponents of net

neutrality can agree that having equal access to a common carrier is the most utilitarian way.

Opinion

As an opponent of the net neutrality regulations, my opinion falls in line with that of the

ISP’s and the network hardware manufacturers. ISP’s should not be bound by old, outdated

orders and laws that will inhibit the development of the network in 5G. Network slicing is going

to be the best way to handle new technological developments, especially the self-driving

automobiles. For that, public safety on roads requires having a system that is completely

coupled into partnerships with the technology business and an ISP. With 5G, there will be one

hundred times the data transfer speed of our current 4G counterparts. A need to regulate

bandwidth with rules is something that should not be considered going forward as we realize that

we have plenty of network speed to accommodate the needs of various stakeholder groups. The

notion that there is some certainty to ISP’s throttling and demanding more money is a slippery

slope fallacy. That idea suggests that one bad thing will lead to another, but it only happened in

a small set of real-life cases. The future of the global network depends on innovations of well-

intentioned companies and the 5G networks will be their inspiration.

5G networks are going to change the world soon, but to what extent will rule utilitarian

believers go along with this? The role of regulation of 5G networks is still a highly debatable

topic. The US government institutions will continue to swing in both directions depending on

who is in charge. We have already seen the FCC change direction on this more than once, and

the stakeholders will keep pushing their agendas through Congress.

 James 7

References

Communications Act of 1934. (1934). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved from:

https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

H.R.1644 - Save the Internet Act of 2019. (2019, April 29). Congress.gov. Retrieved from:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1644/text

Madison River Communications. (2005). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved from:

https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-543A2.html

Net Neutrality Experts’ Roundtable Series Process Report. (2019, May 29). Internet Society.

Retrieved from: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2019/net-neutrality-

process-report/

Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet. (2015, March 12). Federal Communications

Commission. Retrieved from:

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-

24A1.pdf

Restoring Internet Freedom. (2018, January 4). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved

from: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-restoring-internet-freedom-order

Romm, T., & Fung, B. (2019, April 10). Net neutrality bill sails through the House but faces an

uncertain political future. Washington Post. Retrieved from:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/10/net-neutrality-bill-sails-

through-house-faces-an-uncertain-political-future/

Wu, T. (2003, June 5). Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. Journal of

Telecommunications and High Technology Law. Retrieved from:

http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF