After Net Neutrality

[Commentary] The DC Circuit Court’s decision to uphold the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service was a big deal. Going forward, there’s now a meaningful protection against the abuse of Internet monopoly power (complexities related to plans like “zero-rating“ notwithstanding). But we should be clear about what this decision does not do. While it establishes a crucial safeguard and changes the larger conversation about the role of digital communications in a democratic society, it doesn’t strike at the core problem: corporate capture of the Internet. The decision doesn’t weaken the stranglehold that a handful of Internet firms hold over broadband and it doesn’t significantly lessen the digital divide.

In many ways, it was a defensive victory that undid past damage. The history of American media policy suggests there are three general ways to prevent commercial capture of a communication system:
1) Breaking up or preventing media monopolies and oligopolies (e.g., the FCC forcing NBC to divest itself of a major network in the 1940s, the establishment of media ownership restrictions, and antitrust action against AT&T in the 1980s).
2) Creating alternative public infrastructures (such as public broadcasting or community/municipal-owned broadband).
3) Mandating strong public interest protections (via the Equal Time Rule or restrictions on advertising).

Challenging corporate dominance of crucial infrastructure like the Internet will take long-term organizing and tremendous grassroots energy. What we know thus far about Hillary Clinton’s tech policy agenda suggests there’s room for improvement, especially in contesting corporate capture of the Internet. Confronting the structural roots of internet monopoly power will require the same commitment to democratic principles and the same activism that won net neutrality.

[Victor Pickard is an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication]