A large, mostly rural state with a small population, Montanais not often cited as a technology leader. But when thinking about the effectsof instituting—or repealing—laws and regulations requiring “net neutrality” andhow net neutrality and eLearning intersect, Montana is a perfect case study. Pioneersin eLearning and distance education, Montana’s residents and government understandthe importance of net neutrality; Montana was the first state to takemeaningful action in response to the FCC announcement that it was repealing netneutrality regulations.
Montana’s students have benefited from distance learningsince well before the internet age. Big Sky Telegraph, which was based atWestern Montana College of the University of Montana, connected rural Montanaschools in 1989, enabling scores of one-room schools to offer their studentsonline courses in foreign languages, advanced mathematics, and other subjectsthat the local instructors could not teach. The network provided modems andcomputers to teachers, instructed them on how to use this new technology—and connectedschools and students until widespread internet availability rendered itsservices obsolete. Now, rural telecoms and internet providers across Montana connectschools, libraries, hospitals, and other critical facilities to a statewide fiberbackbone to offer reliable high-speed internet access.
But being able to connect to the internet isn’t enough.Schools, universities, hospitals, telecommuters—Montana has the highestproportion in the nation—elected officials, and business people all need accessto content. “For as long as you, or I, or anyone in this room has used theinternet, we’ve had certain expectations about how things work. We’ve hadaccess to a free and open internet. But a free and open internet is no longerguaranteed. The loss of internet neutrality principles threatens the future ofthe students standing in this very room,” Montana Governor Steve Bullock saidon January 22, 2018, in a speech delivered at the same high school he attended.That’s the day he signed a law requiring state agencies to procure internetservices only from companies that “adhere to internet neutrality principles.”
The reasons Bullock listed—and included in the text of thelaw—apply to anyone engaged in eLearning and eCommerce. They include:
- Free and open exchange of information isessential to social, commercial, and civic life
- Citizens rely on a free and open internet to learnand make informed choices
- Businesses rely on free and open internet toenter markets, to recruit and train employees, to compete, and to grow
- Educational institutions rely on free and openinternet “to provide Montanans with world-class educational opportunities”
Understanding net neutrality
“Net neutrality” refers to the principles that the internetshould be open to all content and that service providers should be required totreat all content equally. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) isworking to change regulation of how internet service providers handle contentflowing over the internet.
In 2015, the FCC implemented the so-called Net Neutralitypolicy, which classified broadband providers as “common carriers”—companiesproviding public telecommunications services—rather than “informationproviders.” This change meant that the providers had to treat all content thesame, regardless of where the content came from or who owned it. It’s similarto requiring that a mail carrier deliver letters from anyone who wants to sendthem, even if the mail carrier disagrees with the sender’s viewpoint. It alsorequired providers to charge all customers the same price for the same service.That means that your internet service couldn’t charge you more to receivestreaming video through Hulu than it charged you to receive Netflix video, orblock or slow delivery of content owned by a competitor.
The rationale for classifying internet service as more of autility than an information service was that everyone should have—needs tohave—unfettered access to information on the internet, just as all potentialcustomers in a city have equal access to electricity or taxi cabs (utilitycompanies and taxi companies are also considered common carriers).
The argument against considering internet providers to becommon carriers is that they are businesses, and, as such, they are harmed by theregulations, which limit their potential for growth. Some claim that serviceproviders’ investment in broadband infrastructure has dropped since netneutrality was implemented, though that claim is widely challenged. Othersargue that internet providers won’t make business decisions that harm consumers,since those consumers are their customers.
In late 2017, the FCC announced that it was dismantling the2015 net neutrality rules—and prohibiting state governments from passing theirown net neutrality rules. This would mean that a carrier, such as Verizon,Comcast, or ATT, could charge more for some types of content, block somecontent, or slow down or speed up delivery of some content.
Opposition to this decision is widespread, and the FCCrepeal of net neutrality rules is likely to be tied up in legal fights for sometime. Montana’s Bullock and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo have signedlegislation that requires all state contractors to adhere to net neutrality.This addresses the problem in a way that they believe does not clash with theban on state net neutrality laws—and throws the weight of a significant consumerof internet services, state agencies, behind support for net neutralityprinciples. These governors are gambling that internet providers won’t want tobe locked out of state contracts. Other states, including California, aretaking on the FCC more directly by passing state net neutrality laws indefiance of the FCC ban.
Net neutrality and eLearning
The battle over net neutrality affects nearly everyone: statelegislators, consumers, businesses—and educators and learners. Many K-12 educatorsrely on web-based content; higher education has moved significant content todistance education via MOOCs, asynchronous courses, and more. CorporateeLearning is replete with virtual classrooms, webinars, conference calls, and web-based content that learnersaccess individually and asynchronously. In addition, much learning occurs on social media and informal networking sites.
The repeal of net neutrality could hinder eLearning thatrelies on speedy delivery of streaming video content, for example. Or it couldaffect what content people can access: One fear is that, if they are allowedto, internet service providers will reduce access to content they don’t own byblocking or slowing (called “throttling”) delivery of content owned bycompetitors, or content from providers that cannot or will not pay premiumprices for speedy delivery to schools, companies, or individual subscribers.
Startups, small businesses, and individuals lack the clout(and the capital) to pay extra for faster delivery of their content, so netneutrality fans worry that the internet will become the playground of a fewlarge, wealthy content providers, squeezing out innovation as access isreduced.
An additional area of concern is privacy. If internetservice providers are segregating content by type or by who owns it—in order toroute it through fast or slow channels—they’re also looking more closely atwhich content is going where. The concern is that this added scrutiny couldresult in providers blocking competing content providers, including socialmedia platforms owned by competitors. They could block tools that interferewith their business interests or infuse educational content—and the pupils usingit—with tracking, advertising, or other unwelcome intrusions.
A developing story
The old net neutrality rules are still in effect as theFCC’s repeal works its way through various bureaucratic processes—and faceslegal challenges. Learners and eLearning developers alike should keep an eye onthis developing issue, armed with an understanding of how net neutrality andeLearning intersect.
