All websites welcome

SA authorities are unlikely to ever repeal Net neutrality rules the way the US has done, experts say

The US government’s decision to repeal “Net neutrality” rules sparked a consumer backlash around the globe, though experts say Internet users in SA are unlikely to be meaningfully affected.

Net neutrality allows access to all content without any of it being given priority or blocked.

US regulators last month voted to allow Internet service providers (ISPS) to prioritise certain content or sites while snubbing others.

They will have the power to slow down sites or demand payment from content providers to ensure fast access, raising concerns that large corporations with deep pockets will have the upper hand. For example, the principle of Net neutrality prohibits Telkom from slowing down or blocking the website of competitor MTN, or the Financial Mail’s website, for these websites’ customers

The move goes against the generally accepted principle that ISPS must treat all sites and content equally.

World Wide Worx MD Arthur Goldstuck says Net neutrality rules were formalised in the US in response to the efforts of ISPS and mobile operators to create “private versions of the Internet where you paid a premium for accessing high-demand content on their infrastructure”.

AT&T, for instance, tried to charge customers for access to services such as Facetime and Skype, though this was ultimately ruled illegal by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

“With the current head of the FCC being [an appointee of President Donald

Trump], and Trump being anticonsumer and pro-big business, one of the first things he did was to instruct the commission to scrap Net neutrality, which is a fundamentally anticonsumer policy move,”

Goldstuck says.

AT&T reacted quickly by announcing that it would once again charge users for accessing certain services, he says.

“A lot of predatory service providers in the

US are delighted because it is in their culture to exploit consumers,” Goldstuck says, adding that he expects future US administrations to punish ISPS for how they act under the new regime.

SA is only now starting to formalise its pro-net neutrality stance, and Internet users here are unlikely to have a drastically different experience after the new rules in the US come into play.

One potential knock-on effect, however, is that subscription costs for various services, such as Netflix, will eventually rise, given that ISPS in the US will be able to charge customers or ask content providers to pay for priority access to their services, Goldstuck says.

“The inevitable result is that the cost of these services could go up around the world, because Netflix is not going to absorb the cost of paying for proprietary access.”

There are also concerns that the end of Net neutrality in the world’s largest economy could dent the burgeoning cryptocurrency market.

Justin Tabb, CEO of Substratum Network, says cryptocurrency investments “skyrocketed” after former US President Barack Obama enacted Net neutrality.

Now, the digital currency market could be constrained if large corporate ISPS control this traffic.

“Ending Net neutrality in the US could not only disrupt a Us$300bn financial market, but significantly set back the evolution of a truly free and open Internet.”

Dominic Cull, regulatory adviser to SA’S Internet Service Providers Association, says the Internet experience is unlikely to change in SA, as most large content providers now distribute their content through local infrastructure. Amazon and Microsoft have set up data centres in SA and Google is likely to follow suit relatively soon, which means “the days of us going to fetch content” are largely over.

“So I don’t think it’s necessarily going to make any difference in terms of our experience,” Cull says.

He adds that there is no evidence that local ISPS are breaching Net neutrality principles.

While “traffic management” is common in SA and elsewhere — ISPS often slow down types of content such as file sharing or voice calls (rather than individual websites) — this is necessary, given network constraints.

But Cull says if a mobile operator prioritised access to its own content, for instance, this would be anticompetitive and action would need to be taken.