On Jan. 18, the DU Federalist Society hosted a discussion between University of Nebraska College of Law professor Justin Hurwitz, and DU MFJS associate professor Derigan Silver—each focusing on the implications between the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) recent decision to repeal net neutrality rules.
This vote would then potentially allow internet service providers (ISP) the ability to regulate internet speeds on their own accord. Hurwitz, who spoke first at the event in Sturm College of Law, told the audience of law students, undergraduate students, professors and other members of the DU community that they should focus on the legal and policy aspects of the issue. As lawyers, he argued it’s the profession’s job to clarify to the general public what the implications of political discourse are without the filtering lens of rhetoric.
Through a legal perspective, Hurwitz questioned the FCC’s statutory authority to regulate the internet. This question, Hurwitz hoped will be tackled through the Major Questions Doctrine. The doctrine says, “courts should not defer to agencies when it comes to major questions. Questions of vast political or economic significance,” described Hurwitz. If an agency is claiming to have newfound authority to regulate an important part of the American economy then, “Congress needs to be clear in giving [the organization] this power,” he said.
When discussing the policy behind net neutrality and its revocation, Hurwitz saw a more optimistic side that may come from paid prioritization. As a case study, the professor gave the example of Metro PCS’s 2011 plan where users for $40 a month could have access to unlimited YouTube in order to transition users to 4G. Despite accusations of violating net neutrality, the plan was popular among users according to Hurwitz who saw this as an example of a pay-for-what-you-want program that is can be successful.
MFJS Professor Silver began his half of the discussion by dispelling assumptions that the general public may have when debating net neutrality. When it comes to telecommunications law, Silver believes there is value in having government regulation for it can increase diversity of thought and ease one’s access to information. Corporations, such as ISPs, he argued, should not be thought of immediately as anti-regulation. “Corporations will always be in favor of what maximizes corporate profits,” said Silver.
Silver proceeded by asking the attendees if they were willing to cut their access to the internet. No hands were raised. His follow-up question asked if they were willing to cut their access to cable; multiple hands raised. He did this to raise his point that, “we don’t want an internet that works like cable. Why? Because cable television sucks,” he said.
He concluded by summarizing that, in his eyes, an ideal internet should have fast speeds, equal access to all content and a greater broadband access for greater populations. Silver argued that those who favor net neutrality see those regulations as the best way to ensure that underrepresented populations have access to the internet.
