Net Neutrality in the Context of Provision of Fair and Equitable Access to Information Sources and Services

Abstract

The purpose of this literature review is to examine the impact of changes in net neutrality policies on public library services. Specifically, this review aims to find what questions have been investigated in relation to public library institutions and their users. Reviewed literature seems to be in favor of a neutral Internet and argues about the negative effects of its loss. Librarians whose mission is to protect disenfranchised members of society seemed to be motivated to fight for a neutral Internet and favor of keeping net neutrality policies in place.

Full text

Net Neutrality in the Context of Provision of Fair and
Equitable Access to Information Sources and Services
Amanda Novak
a
and Lala Hajibayova
b
a
Ela Area Public Library Lake Zurich, IL, USA;
b
Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this literature review is to examine the impact
of changes in net neutrality policies on public library services.
Specifically, this review aims to find what questions have been
investigated in relation to public library institutions and their
users. Reviewed literature seems to be in favor of a neutral
Internet and argues about the negative effects of its loss.
Librarians whose mission it is to protect disenfranchised mem-
bers of society seemed to be motivated to fight for a neutral
Internet and favor of keeping net neutrality policies in place.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 15 July 2018
Accepted 10 September
2018
KEYWORDS
net neutrality; public library;
net neutrality regulations;
public library services;
Internet regulations
Introduction
The emergence of Internet technologies has provided extraordinary possibilities
to participate in building and cultivating a shared culture that goes far beyond
physical boundaries. Internet technologies have also made feasible a dream of
creating of archives and libraries that would not only preserve but, most
importantly, provide free and equal public access to the cultural expressions.
Along with such unlimited opportunities, however, the development of the
Internet has also facilitated reinforcement of a permission culture, in which
creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful or of previously
established creators, and users and providers of public access to resources (such
as libraries) are subjected to regulations and laws that control, restrict, and
otherwise infringe upon access to information (Lessig 2006). For example, the
emergence of electronic databases of scientific publications has resulted in
restricted public access to scientific literature as publishers have demanded
that libraries not give the general public access to the electronic journals as
they used to do with printed journals (Lessig 2006). Freedom in providing open
access to the scientific literature, which was facilitated by the function of libraries
(or norm) and the technology of printed scientific journals (or architecture),
became very hard to control on the Internet, which is deemed to have given too
much freedom to users, for example, by enabling them to do their own research
on prescribed medical treatments to understand the benefits and risks of pre-
scribed medications (Lessig 2006). Thus, at the urge of the content industry,
CONTACT Lala Hajibayova lhajibay@kent.edu Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2018.1524703
Published with license by Taylor & Francis. © Amanda Novak and Lala Hajibayova
PRE-PRINT

there have been threats of legislation that would require computer technologies
to determine whether content is protected and disable open access to protected
content (Lessig 2006).
One such major threat has been the recent challenge to the net neutrality.
The term net neutrality wascoinedbyWu(2003) to explain the principle that
Internet service providers (ISPs) enable access to Internet content and applica-
tions regardless of the source, without favoring or blocking particular products
or websites. While there is no consensus on the definition of the principle of net
neutrality, various degrees of rigor in conceptualization of the principle have
been observed, with a more strict definition proposed by consumer rights
groups that would prohibit ISPs from speeding up, slowing down, or blocking
Internet traffic based on its source, ownership, or destination to more lenient
definition of net neutrality as a broadband service that does not favor or charge
content providers for sending their information over broadband lines to end
users (Krämer, Wiewiorra, and Weinhardt 2013).
In 2016, the United Nations
1
passed a nonbinding resolution to make
disruption of Internet access a violation of human rights (Poushter, Bishop,
and Chwe 2018). The first point in the American Library Association’s
(American Library Association, 2018c) Code of Ethics states that libraries
should provide the highest level of service to all library users through
organized resources, equitable service policies, equitable access, and
unbiased, courteous responses to all requests. The second point demands
that libraries uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all
efforts to censor library resources (American Library Association, 2018b).
Godwin (2006) argued that:
…it is critical for the growth of the Internet that a robust, competitive market for
Internet carriage and services be encouraged, with regulation kept at a minimum. At
the same time, we hold that net neutrality –properly understood –is a fundamental
principle of the Internet that has permitted it to become a critical information and
communication resource for libraries, their missions, and their patrons. (1)
However, no studies have addressed the debate on net neutrality regulations
from the perspective of library information science scholars and profes-
sionals. Taking into consideration that the fundamental role of library and
information institutions is provision of fair and equal access to information
sources and services, this article examines the perceived impact of changes in
net neutrality policies on public library services in library and information
science research.
Net neutrality
Net neutrality is one of the founding principles of the Internet. The Open
Internet Coalition (2018) states the following benefits of the open Internet:
2A. NOVAK AND L. HAJIBAYOVA
PRE-PRINT

●Internet openness empowers consumers, as users decide what content
and applications they want to access, and everyone can freely speak and
create online, without having to get permission first.
●Internet openness drives innovation and economic growth, as the
Internet is an open platform where everyone can innovate and compete,
for example by creating new content and applications. This has resulted
in an unprecedented job creation and growth.
●Internet openness encourages broadband deployment, as an open
Internet facilitates greater innovation by developers and content crea-
tors. This drives additional consumer demand for faster broadband
networks, thereby creating economic incentives for broadband providers
to upgrade and expand their networks.
In the United States, Internet regulation falls within the federal government’s
authority, specifically, within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). The FCC legally regulates telecommunications carriers
under the Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which facilitates the deployment of broad-
band to Americans (Hanna 2018). Title II provides the FCC the authority to
protect consumers and online businesses against “unjust or unreasonable dis-
crimination”by Internet providers (Hanna 2018). Telecommunication Act of
1996 is not only provided a response to “economic, political and technological
paradigm shifts, [but also] …assert[ed] a prominent role for the state in
articulating policy, and leaves open an important role for civil society in defining
and implementing it terms”(Aufderheide 1997, 259). Moreover, this act has
concretized a “shift in regulatory ideology, away from structural regulation and
toward incentives regulation”(Aufderheide 1997, 278).
In 2010, the FCC approved the Open Internet Order to ensure transpar-
ency, i.e., disclosure of network management practices, performance char-
acteristics, and terms and conditions of broadband services; no blocking, i.e.,
no blocking of lawful content, applications, services, and nonharmful devices
by the broadband providers; and, no discrimination, i.e., no unreasonable
discrimination of transmission of lawful network traffic (Hanna 2018).
In 2015, the FCC’s Open Internet Order was passed as the net neutrality
rule, which directly classified the Internet as a telecommunications service.
Under the net neutrality rule, the Internet is considered a public good, and
Internet providers are regulated under the law as common carriers that grant
access to broadband service consumers according to Title II of the
Communication Act of 1934 (Hanna 2018). One of the instances that
prompted this reclassification was a charge in 2010 brought against the
Comcast telecommunication corporation by the FCC for blocking their
customers from uploading data using the popular BitTorrent file-sharing
protocol (Dischinger et al. 2008). The Federal Court of Appeals ruled that
PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY 3
PRE-PRINT

the FCC had not properly justified its authority to regulate Comcast’s net-
work management practices. Riccard (2011) argues that by reclassifying
broadband as a “common carrier,”the FCC solidified its authority to regulate
Internet access providers and enforce net neutrality. In May 2017, the FCC
proposed repealing the net neutrality rule and returning to light-touch
Internet regulations, and on December 14, 2017, the FCC voted in favor of
Internet providers by repealing the net neutrality policy.
Net neutrality has been also at the forefront of media coverage that draws
public interest and grassroots efforts to influence the proposed changes to net
neutrality. In 2014, the Pew Internet Research Center anecdotally associated a
high spike in public interest on net neutrality with John Oliver’s coverage of
the issue on HBO’sLast Week Tonight with John Oliver show, which along
with grassroots efforts has resulted in nearly 450,000 comments submitted
for FCC consideration (Williams and Shelton 2014). In 2017, the FCC’s
reconsideration of net neutrality regulations, the second consideration in
less than 4 years, has resulted in public submission of over 21.7 million
comments (Hitlin, Olmstead, and Toor 2017). Although the 57% of the
submitted comments have been called into question due to duplicate
e-mail addresses, there have been still roughly nine and a half million
legitimate responses (Hitlin, Olmstead, and Toor 2017). Simon (2018), dis-
cussing the 2017 repeal of net neutrality laws, states that despite a wave of
opposition to the proposal, the FCC pushed ahead with the vote, seemingly
ignoring the vast majority of public comments and holding no public
hearings.
The principle of net neutrality is vital for communities, especially com-
munity members who do not have resources for connectivity within their
households, as they rely on library services such as free Internet and Wi-Fi
(Turner and Kendall 2000). According to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey
on library use and engagement suggests that 45% of library users between the
ages of 16 and 29 used computers, the Internet, or the library’s Wi-Fi, and
35% of those whose annual household incomes were $30,000 or less
(Horrigan 2016). Well-educated and financially well-off Americans are far
more likely to have traditional broadband access at home. The Pew Research
survey states that while nearly 90% of Americans who earn $75,000 or more
annually report having traditional broadband access at home, only 45% of
Americans earning $30,000 or less annually report having access at home
(Smith and Olmstead 2018).
Relevant to differences in opportunities to access the Internet, Hahn and
Litan (2006) argue that the current Internet technologies “support quality-of-
service (QoS) technology, which can label some traffic as higher priority than
other traffic. During times of congestion, the lower priority traffic would be
dropped first”(5). This argument asserts that in one way or another, the
4A. NOVAK AND L. HAJIBAYOVA
PRE-PRINT

element of prioritization has always existed with ISPs. The authors also warn
that:
By eliminating or seriously jeopardizing the market for real-time applications, net
neutrality legislation would likely reduce consumer welfare for current real-time
applications, such as online gaming. It would also dampen the development of new
applications that depend critically on quality of service. (10)
Cheng et al. (2012) analysis of congressional and FCC hearings regarding
neutrality demonstrated that proponents of net neutrality regulation may be
taking a longer-term view on the issue by focusing on the innovation that
may be spurred, in the long run, by net neutrality regulation, while outright
opponents of net neutrality may be taking a more short-term stance by
aiming to increase their immediate profits on the bandwidth that they
currently supply. Cheng and colleagues suggest that when innovation meets
wealth, we may merely be seeing different degrees of urgency from different
stakeholders in the net neutrality debate. Along these lines, Aufderheide
argues that the “problem of designing policies appropriate to today’s and
tomorrow’s communication technologies and business environments always
comes back to problem of the public”(1999, 7). However, the public as a
social creation is quite distinct from governmental organizations that claim
to stand for it, and is also quite different from the goal of individual freedom
as it is a result of relationships “that are kept alive in conversation about the
consequences of social, political, and economic arrangements we all share”
(as cited in Aufderheide 1999, 7).
However, there have been no studies analyzing how the debate on net
neutrality regulations is conceptualized by library information science scho-
lars and professionals. Taking into consideration their mission to provide fair
and equal access to information sources and services, this literature review is
an investigation of the issues that have been examined and how the library
and information science literature weighs on the impact of changes in US net
neutrality policies on public library services.
Methodology
Relevant peer-reviewed scholarly publications indexed in two Library and
Information Science Databases, Library Literature and Information Science
Full Text and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, were
searched for the following keywords in the title or abstract of an article: net
neutrality, library, and libraries. The search produced 91 results, all published
between 2006 and 2018. Of 11 articles that were in peer-reviewed scholarly
journals, only three addressed the topic of public libraries. With the addition
of keyword public, 21 results became available, only two of which were
scholarly and peer reviewed. The same search terms entered into Library,
PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY 5
PRE-PRINT

Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text yielded 109 results
published between 2001 and 2018, 19 of which were in scholarly journals.
With the addition of the search term public, the results dwindled to three,
none of which were specifically relevant to public libraries. Relevant literature
was also discovered through citation analysis of retrieved scholarly
publications.
Some of the most relevant literature that deals directly with net neutrality
in public libraries comes not from academic sources, but statements from
organizations like the American Library Association and interviews pub-
lished on news websites like The Verge (https://www.theverge.com), which
have featured interviews with librarians from the New York Public Library
(NYPL).
The earliest publications concerned with net neutrality and public libraries
date back to 2006, many appearing during times when policy was under
debate. Almost half of the literature mentioned was published in 2017 and
2018, suggesting that the public has become increasingly aware of the con-
cept and the potential effects of policy changes.
Literature review
As values of transparency and openness are at the core of library and
information services, it comes as no surprise that principles of net
neutrality strongly resonate with the community of library and informa-
tion science scholars and professionals, many of whom have expressed
their concerns about the potentially damaging effects of changes in net
neutrality regulations on essential services of libraries, such as free
access to online resources (Adam and Harris 2018;Bailey2006;
Barron 2007). For example, Austin (2017), discussing the existing
monopoly in telecommunication services in the United States, warns
about worsening of already poor Internet services in rural areas. Janes
(2017) points out that libraries and librarians have always fought for the
rights of patrons to read and think freely without fear of exposure,
surveillance, or censure, as well as for open and equal access to a range
of materials. However, to avoid further politicization of an already
politicized debate, he cautions that libraries must be strategic and use
terms that historically have been associated with library services to
express their stance on net neutrality:
Perhaps in dialogues about how we can best employ our skills, experience, and
resources to advance our communities’interests and well-being, words such as
even-handed, unbiased, and equitable might come in handy when referring to
services and collections. I’d also toss in some great old favorites: Just.
Independent. Fair. (para. 7)
6A. NOVAK AND L. HAJIBAYOVA
PRE-PRINT

As libraries strive to remain politically neutral in order to best serve
everyone who walks through their front doors, a policy change that
violates the basic tenets of what libraries stand for makes it necessary to
take a stance and fight for fair and equitable online access to informa-
tion. Tiffany (2017) argues that access to information is essential to
every aspect of individuals’lives, including learning, work, and leisure,
and that any attempt to reduce that access, particularly for people who
cannot afford alternative sources of information, is a blow to the basic
democratic principles that libraries have been standing for decades.
Nearly every public library in the United States provides public access
to the Internet as a service central to theirmission.Publiclibrariesare
among the few places where people have free use of computers and Wi-
Fi(Bertotetal.2006; Kinney 2010). Many libraries also lend out hot
spots and portable computer devices, such as laptops and tablets to
patrons. Patrons utilize the Internet in libraries for a multitude of
activities, such as accessing the library’s digital collections, communicat-
ing, doing school work, conducting research, and applying for jobs (D’
Elia et al. 2007). Public libraries serve as the central public Internet and
computing access point for a wide range of government services and
resources (Bertot et al. 2006;Realetal.2015). Moreover, as many jobs
now conduct virtual first interviews, having Internet access is increas-
ingly vital to job seekers.
However, there are also supporters of changes in net neutrality
regulations (e.g., Kruzel 2017) For example, Kruzel (2017)arguesthat
the expected higher profits for broadband providers will lead to more
infrastructure investments and result in wider availability of high-speed
Internet services in underserved and rural areas. Bianco presents both
sides of the net neutrality debate, stating that:
Telecommunications companies…argue that legislation to enforce net neutrality is
unnecessary and could damage their business. [They] can’t continue to guarantee
the quality of their customers’Internet connections when some Web sites, like
YouTube, eat up bandwidth. (2006, 22)
In addition to presenting many of the same concerns of those who are in
favor of net neutrality, such as restricted access to content and services,
Bianco (2006) concludes that it is only fair that they be able to charge a
premium in order to assure priority delivery.
Overall, analysis of sampled literature revealed the following major
themes associated with the significance of net neutrality to the missions
of public libraries: intellectual freedom and fair access to information,
the digital divide and digital inequality, and censorship.
PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY 7
PRE-PRINT

Intellectual freedom and access to information
The ALA states that intellectual freedom, a core value protected by library
professionals, is the right to seek information, read, and speak freely as
guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
(American Library Association, 2018b). A publicly supported library pro-
vides free, equitable, and confidential access to information for all people of
its community. Regarding this, Greyson (2010) decisively states that net
neutrality is indeed a library issue and asks,
Is the Internet a basic service that should be open to all with minimal barriers, and
is a neutral net essential in order to have a level playing field for all who participate
in online communications? Or is the Internet an entertainment venue on which
content providers should book time or space, paying each ISP [Internet Service
Provider] to make content available on that ISP’s network?”(2010, 57).
He argues that the Internet is both a basic service and an entertainment
venue, and based on the premise that it is a basic service, it is necessary to
protect a neutral net. His most compelling argument is that a non-neutral
Internet would create another distinction between the haves—those who can
pay for access—and the have-nots—those who depend on public libraries for
access. A non-neutral Internet violates the library’s principles of equitable
access to information and freedom of expression. The author concludes that
advocating for net neutrality is a critical component of ensuring equitable
access to information and freedom of expression.
Riccard (2010) discusses how research libraries benefit from the concept of
net neutrality. She argues that one of the main benefits of the Internet is that
it is one of the few open spaces that is an equal platform for anyone to voice
his/her opinion. In support of net neutrality, she writes that the “ability of
educators, librarians, non-profit institutions, and members of the public to
voice ideas on par with commercial entities…is in jeopardy if we do not
enact safeguards to protect its open structure”(2010, 14).
One of the major issues concerning provision of fair access to information
is access tiering, the idea that telephone and cable companies should be free
to offer different levels of service (what are known as fast lanes and slow
lanes) based on what fees Internet users pay. That is, it would as Guindon
(2010) states, “create a tiered network with a fast lane mostly reserved for
large and affluent corporations, while smaller firms, non-profits and public
entities like libraries could only afford the slower lane”(15). Riccard (2011)
argues that as libraries are increasingly called upon to provide access to
online sources and services that rely on a high-speed Internet access, the
tiered pricing would challenge library services, especially in libraries that do
not have the resources to pay for a higher quality service. Thus, as patrons
increasingly need the high-speed Internet (Dudek, Mastora, and Landoni
2007) to expeditiously accomplish their work, most libraries would not be
8A. NOVAK AND L. HAJIBAYOVA
PRE-PRINT

able to pay the higher fees for their ISPs to give their content priority for fast
lane delivery, so these patrons would be forced to deal with slow loading
times.
Bridges (2006) reiterates the negative consequence of tiered levels of
service for research libraries that create their own informational content
(such as research results, historical databases, interactive experiences, and
more) for their users. He states that, “It is unreasonable to think that libraries
would be able to pay an additional premium…to ensure that users can
access their sites quickly”(514). Bridges warns that online content created by
libraries and other nonprofit institutions “would quickly lose the competition
for ‘eyes’if they were forced to compete with sites produced by companies
who can afford to cut deals with ISPs for premium service”(514). Similarly,
Tiffany (2017) directly addresses the libraries’experiences and perspective in
the wake of the 2017 net neutrality repeal, arguing that the rollback of net
neutrality might block or downgrade publishers or content providers that are
not favored. Tiffany (2017) further states that in a system of paid prioritiza-
tion, the content of vital importance to users would be likely to end up in the
slow lane, such as digital job interview platforms, which require the use of
high-power broadband to access the large datasets.
Digital divide and digital inequality
DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) argues that the digital divide between “haves”
and “have-nots”in terms of access to and use of the new technologies leads
to digital inequality among persons according to how they are able to access
the Internet . Real and colleagues (2014) argue that many rural public
libraries are the only providers of free broadband Internet service and
computer terminals for their communities, as these communities have the
lowest average proportion of homes with broadband connections. Bertot and
colleagues (2012) point out that in the last decade, the average public library
has not only drastically increased the number of public access workstations
and Internet access, but also has become the primary social institution that
provide e-government access and assistance, community support in emer-
gency response and recovery, and Internet resource training services.
Lonial (2018) points out that public libraries have long strived to minimize
the existing gulf between those who do have access to the Internet technol-
ogies and those who do not by providing free access to the Internet services.
The author suggests that to avoid negative effects of the repeal of net
neutrality, librarians should inform themselves on developing community-
run Internet networks and hyper-local, alternative Internet networks, such as
mesh networks, to maintain free and open web spaces. Nevertheless, public
libraries themselves are not immune to the effects of the digital divide (Jaeger
et al. 2012), as public library “funding structures that place local governments
PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY 9
PRE-PRINT

at the forefront of budgeting plans put rural libraries at a serious disadvan-
tage and promote a digital divide between rural and nonrural areas”(Real,
Bertot, and Jaeger 2014, 15). In this vein, Cohron (2015) posits that:
At its core, the digital divide is more than just an issue about providing citizens
with access to computers and the Internet —it is about leveling the playing field in
regards to information diffusion. The Internet is such a prominent utility in
peoples’lives that we, as a society, cannot afford for citizens to go without. From
education to economics and politics…there is no realm that the Internet will not
influence…. (84)
Censorship
Differentiation of level of service according to ability to pay is not an
unprecedented concept among Internet providers; the newest concern
regarding access tiering for net neutrality advocates is that broadband pro-
viders could extend this idea to content. The First Amendment right to speak
and publish has been interpreted broadly as protection for society and
individuals against government attempts to suppress ideas and information
and to censor books, magazines, and newspapers as well as art, film, music,
and materials on the Internet. The Supreme Court and other courts have
consistently upheld the First Amendment right to receive information as a
corollary to the right to speak (American Library Association, 2018a). This
protection could be in jeopardy without net neutrality.
Blocking Internet protocol (IP) address(es), which serve as an identity to a
networked device, can be utilized to discriminate against certain content and
censor for political, legal, and/or commercial reasons. For example, Guindon
and Dennie (2010) reports that during a labor dispute, the Telus, a Canadian
Internet provider, blocked subscribers’access to a server hosting union’s
website. In so doing, the Telus also blocked 766 unrelated web sites hosted
on the same server. In this regard, White (2014) writes that:
A non-neutral Internet is a censored Internet . Some voices and expressions are
given priority while others are subjugated to lower quality of service, or life in the
Internet slow lane. The right for all views to be presented equally, as well as
challenging censorship and encouraging intellectual development and enlighten-
ment of all citizens, are important tenets in the Library Bill of Rights. (154)
Overall, the reviewed literature on the significance of net neutrality for
libraries favors a neutral Internet and warns about the negative effects of
the loss of net neutrality. Librarians, whose mission it is to protect disen-
franchised members of society, are generally motivated to fight for a neutral
Internet and for the FCC to keep net neutrality policies in place. In this
regard, Joint (2005) argues that the Internet has an important contribution to
make to the improvement of the democratic process, but this contribution
10 A. NOVAK AND L. HAJIBAYOVA
PRE-PRINT

can only be effective only with the advocacy and support of information
professionals and educators.
Framework for actions
The literature reviewed here suggests that library and information science
researchers and professionals are deeply concerned about changes in net
neutrality regulations, and information professionals are motivated to fight
for fair, equal, and accessible Internet services. To this end, we argue that
library and information professionals need to be actively engaged not only in
advocating for fair use of the Internet, but also in monitoring changes in
accessibility of developing actions to ensure public access to its sources and
services. In particular, this article recommends the following actions:
●Advocate
Advocacy campaigns engaging both public library users, local communities and
government institutions may strengthen digital citizenship and facilitate public
engagement in issues associated with governance of Internet sources and services.
●Monitor
Monitoring accessibility of online information sources, such as slow-downs and
changes in pricing, which could be performed in strong cooperation with patrons.
●Act
In order to preserve and develop sources of information that are vital for com-
munities, local initiatives can be implemented to create databases of high local
need, such as job listings, and expand publicly accessible Wi-Fi zones, just to name
two possibilities.
This framework would potentially contribute to strengthening the demo-
cratic culture, and call policymakers to “participate in and learn from public
discussion and input –encouraged by hearings, public statement by policy-
makers calling for input, and engagement with the broad nonprofit sector –
as they reshape the law”(Aufderheide 2006, 413)
Conclusion
This article has discussed some of the major issues, such as intellectual
freedom, censorship, and digital justice, addressed in the literature related
to net neutrality, libraries, and specifically public libraries. All these issues are
PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY 11
PRE-PRINT

integral to understanding the potential changes in regulations that could
affect public libraries, their patrons, and the services they provide. The
greatest concerns with regard to patron’s services are filtering or altering of
content by blocking actions by ISPs and slowdowns due to differential
pricing of connection speeds depending on specific content. If prices for
streaming large sets of data increase significantly, library budgets may be and
therefore what libraries can provide for their patrons may suffer.
As of June 11, 2018, net neutrality was officially rolled back by the FCC
and does not currently exist as a protection from Internet providers. Those
who are in favor of net neutrality are still fighting to restore it. What happens
next remains to be seen. Kruzel (2017) reports that major telecommunica-
tions companies have promised that customers’experiences would remain
unchanged in spite of the repeal, but only time will tell. Bertot et al. (2012)
argue that the greatest challenge for “public libraries in continuing their role
as guarantor of community Internet access and education”is the “ability to
find ways to convince those making policy and funding decisions at federal,
state, and local levels of the need to increase, rather than decrease, library
support”(320). Because library budgets, support, and regulations associated
with its Internet services are unsustainable, the potential results could be
disastrous for libraries, their patrons, and their communities. As public
library services and communities they serve are inextricably linked, the future
of one is truly dependent on the other, and calls for coordinated efforts to
ensure their prosperity and successful coexistence.
One of the major limitations of the literature reviewed here is its largely
speculative nature, being based on perceptions and predictions of potential
effects of changes in net neutrality regulations. We, obviously, do not know
with certainty what steps will be executed by Internet providers. However,
these speculations are based on informed statements from professionals and
built on the previous history of commercial ISPs. Based on this review,
therefore, several directions for future research can be envisioned. The future
actions of ISPs will give researchers more concrete evidence of what happens
with or without net neutrality protections in place.
Note
1. United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/index.html.
Notes on contributors
Amanda Novak is the popular materials librarian at the Ela Area Public Library. She is
a Library and Information Science student in the School of Information at Kent State
University. She has a BA in English from Illinois State University.
12 A. NOVAK AND L. HAJIBAYOVA
PRE-PRINT

Lala Hajibayova is an Assistant Professor in the School of Information at Kent State
University. Her research areas include information representation and organization, socio-
technical studies, and computer-mediated communication.
References
Adams, H. R., and C. Harris. 2018. Net neutrality: Why it matters to school librarians.
Teacher Librarian 45 (4):8–12.
American Library Association. 2018a. First Amendment and Censorship. Accessed June 1,
2018. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship
American Library Association. 2018b. Intellectual Freedom: Issues and Resources. Accessed
June 1, 2018.http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom
American Library Association. 2018c. Professional Ethics. Accessed June 1, 2018.http://www.
ala.org/tools/ethics
Aufderheide, P. 1997. Shifting policy paradigms and the public interest in the U.S.
Telecommunication Act of 1996. The Communication Review 2 (2):259–81. doi:10.1080/
10714429709368559.
Aufderheide, P. 1999.Communication Policy and the Public Interest: The Telecommunication
Act of 1996. London, UK: Guilford Press.
Aufderheide, P. 2006. The 1996 telecommunication act: Ten years later. Federal
Communication Law Journal 58 (3):407–14.
Austin, W. W. (2017). Net neutrality repeal creates dark cloud over student and researcher
internet access and equity. Publication of the Intellectual Property Standing Group of the
Conference on College Composition and Communication, pp. 5–9. Accessed June 1, 2018.
http://cccc.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Groups/CCCC/Committees/IP/2017/TopIP
2017Collection.pdf#page=8
Bailey, C. W. 2006. Strong copyright + DRM + weak net neutrality= digital dystopia.
Information Technology and Libraries 25 (3):116–39. doi:10.6017/ital.v25i3.3344.
Barron, B. 2007. The importance of network neutrality to the internet’s role in the public
sphere. Canadian Journal of Media Studies 3 (1):90–105.
Bertot, J. C., P. T. Jaeger, L. A. Langa, and C. R. McClure. 2006. Public access computing and
Internet access in public libraries: The role of public libraries in e-government and
emergency situations. First Monday 9 (4). Accessed June 1, 2018. http://www.firstmon
day.dk/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1392/1310.
Bertot, J. C., U. Gorham, P. T. Jaeger, and N. G. Taylor. 2012. Public libraries and the Internet
2012: Key findings, recent trends, and future challenges. Public Library Quarterly 31
(4):303–25. doi:10.1080/01616846.2012.732479.
Bianco, E. 2006. Net neutrality: Why librarians should care. Alki 22 (3):22–23.
Bridges, A. 2006. Net neutrality: What it is and why does it matter?. College & Research
Libraries News 67 (8):514. doi:10.5860/crln.67.8.7674.
Cheng, A.-S., K. R. Fleischmann, P. Wang, E. Ishita, and D. W. Oard. 2012. The role of
innovation and wealth in the net neutrality debate: A content analysis of human values in
congressional and FCC hearings. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology 63 (7):1360–73.
Cohron, M. 2015. The continuing digital divide in the United States. The Serials Librarian 69
(1):77–86. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2015.1036195.
PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY 13
PRE-PRINT

D’Elia, G., J. Abbas, K. Bishop, D. Jacobs, and E. J. Rodger. 2007. The impact of youth’s use
of the internet on their use of the public library. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology 58 (4):2180–96.
DiMaggio, P., and E. Hargittai, 2001.From the ‘digital divide’to ‘digital inequality’: Studying
Internet use as penetration increases. Accessed June 1, 2018http://www.russellsage.org/sites/
all/files/u4/DiMaggio%20et%20al.pdf
Dischinger, M., A. Mislove, A. Haeberlen, and K. P. Gummadi. 2008. Detecting bittorrent
blocking. Proceeding of the 8th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement,
Vouliagmeni, Greece, October, 20–22, 2008, pp.3–8. New York, NY: ACM.
Dudek, D., A. Mastora, and M. Landoni. 2007. Is Google the answer? A study into usability of
search engines. Library Review 56 (3):224–33. doi:10.1108/00242530710736000.
Godwin, M. 2006. A library perspective on network neutrality. Accessed June 1, 2018http://
www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/oitp/publications/issuebriefs/A%
20Library%20Perspectiv.pdf
Greyson, D. 2010. Net neutrality: A library issue. Feliciter 56 (2):57–59.
Guindon, A., and D. Dennie. 2010. Net neutrality in Canada and what it means for libraries.
Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library & Information Practice & Research 5 (1):1–38.
doi:10.21083/partnership.v5i1.1133.
Hahn, R. W., and R. E. Litan. 2006. The myth of network neutrality and what we should do
about it (AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper No. RP06-33). Accessed June 1, 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.947847
Hanna, M. J. 2018. Net neutrality: A brief overview of the policy and the FCC’s ruling to
upend it. Computer 51 (4):78–81. doi:10.1109/MC.2018.2141045.
Hitlin, P., K. Olmstead, and S. Toor. 2017. Public comments to the federal communications
commission about net neutrality contain many inaccuracies and duplicates. Accessed June
1, 2018. http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/11/29/public-comments-to-the-federal-
communications-commission-about-net-neutrality-contain-many-inaccuracies-and-
duplicates/
Horrigan, J. B. 2016. Library usage and engagement. Accessed June 1, 2018http://www.
pewinternet.org/2016/09/09/library-usage-and-engagement/
Jaeger, P. T., J. C. Bertot, K. M. Thompson, S. M. Katz, and E. J. DeCoster. 2012. The Intersection
of public policy and public access: Digital divides, digital literacy, digital inclusion, and public
libraries. Public Library Quarterly 31 (1):1–20. doi:10.1080/01616846.2012.654728.
Janes, J. 2017. Using our words: Getting it right on neutrality and libraries. American
Libraries 48 (9/10):24. Accessed June 1, 2018. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
2017/09/01/using-our-words-libraries-neutrality/.
Joint, N. 2005. Democracy, eLiteracy, and the internet. Library Review 54 (2):80–85.
doi:10.1108/00242530510583020.
Kinney, B. 2010. The internet, public libraries, and the digital divide. Public Library Quarterly
29 (2):104–61. doi:10.1080/01616841003779718.
Krämer, J., L. Wiewiorra, and C. Weinhardt. 2013. Net neutrality: A progress report.
Telecommunication Policy 37:794–813. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2012.08.005.
Kruzel, J. 2017. What you need to know about net neutrality. Accessed June 1, 2018http://
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/13/what-you-need-know-about-net-
neutrality/
Lessig, L. 2006.Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. New York, NY: Penguin.
Lonial, A. A. 2018. Towards a framework for digital justice in public libraries. Public Libraries
57 (1):13–15.
14 A. NOVAK AND L. HAJIBAYOVA
PRE-PRINT

Open Internet Coalition. Openness is a fundamental principle of the Internet. Accessed June
1, 2018. http://www.openinternetcoalition.com/index.cfm?objectid=0016BFA0-F1F6-6035-
BC6DFC8A0E03C0D7
Poushter, J., C. Bishop, and H. Chwe. 2018. Social media use continues to rise in developing
countries but plateaus across the developed ones. Accessed June 1, 2018. http://assets.
pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/06/15135408/Pew-Research-Center
_Global-Tech-Social-Media-Use_2018.06.19.pdf
Real, B., A. J. McDermot, J. C. Bertot, and P. T. Jaeger. 2015. Digital inclusion and the
Affordable Care Act: Public libraries, politics, policy, and enrollment in “Obamacare”.
Public Library Quarterly 34 (1):1–22. doi:10.1080/01616846.2015.1000770.
Real, B., J. C. Bertot, and P. T. Jaeger. 2014. Rural public libraries and digital inclusion: Issues
and challenges. Information Technology & Libraries 33 (1):6–24. doi:10.6017/ital.
v33i1.5141.
Riccard, K. 2010. The importance of net neutrality to research libraries in the digital age
(Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC, 273, 8–16).
Accessed June 1, 2018. doi:10.29242/rli.273.2
Riccard, K. 2011. Issue brief: FCC’s net neutrality rules and implications for research libraries
(Association of Research Libraries Issue Briefs). Accessed June 1, 2018. http://www.arl.org/
focus-areas/statistics-assessment/1674#.Wy0qFPkrKUl
Simon, M. 2018. FCC votes to kill net neutrality in an unsurprising move. What happens
now?. Macworld - Digital Edition 35 (2):84–86.
Smith, A., and K. Olmstead. 2018. Declining majority of online adults say the internet has
been good for society. Accessed June 1, 2018. http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content
/uploads/sites/14/2018/04/27165144/PI_2018.04.30_Internet-Good-Bad_FINAL.pdf
Tiffany, K. 2017. What public libraries will lose without net neutrality. Accessed June 1,
2018https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16772582/public-libraries-net-neutrality-
broadband-access-first-amendment
Turner, K., and M. Kendall. 2000. Public use of the internet at Chester library, UK.
Information Research.5:3.AccessedJune1,2018.http://www.informationr.net/ir/5-3/
paper75.html.
White, S. 2014. Net neutrality and libraries: Conflicts of access. The Serials Librarian 67
(2):151–57. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.939326.
Williams, A. T., and M. Shelton. 2014. What drove spike in public comments on net
neutrality? Likely, a comedian. Accessed June 1, 2018http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2014/09/05/what-drove-spike-in-public-comments-on-net-neutrality-likely
-a-comedian/
Wu, T. 2003. Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications
and High Technology Law 2:141–79.
PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY 15
PRE-PRINT