Refresh Checked Unchecked Menu Search Shopping bag Geolocation Person Facebook Instagram Twitter YouTube Info Icon CBC Icon CBC Shape CBD Icon CBD Shape CBG Icon CBG Shape THC Icon THC Shape THCV Icon THCV Shape Loading…
Advertise on Leafly

How FCC’s Net Neutrality Rollback Could Hurt Cannabis

December 14, 2017
(wisawa222/iStock)
Along party lines, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3–2 on Thursday to undo government rules that regulate internet service providers, repealing so-called net neutrality regulations amid an outcry from consumer advocates.

Removing protections could stifle cannabis advocacy, hamper small businesses, and prevent medical patients from accessing vital information.

The decision grants broadband companies sweeping control over how Americans access the internet. It removes rules that prohibited providers from blocking websites, slowing access to some services, or charging more for certain content.

Wired magazine describes the rollback as “the difference between a free and open online experience, and one where corporations dictate what you can see, and how fast you can see it.”

The new rules pose a potentially big threat to the cannabis movement, which has relied on the internet as a vital tool for education, research, and political organizing. Removing net neutrality protections could stifle advocacy efforts, hamper small businesses, and prevent medical patients from accessing vital information.

Related

Data Dive: Legalization No Longer a Partisan Issue, Election Data Show

Cannabis isn’t alone. Critics say the new policy could hurt all sorts of stakeholders: students, startups, rural America, minority women, small businesses in Texas, the #MeToo movement, and countless others. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said in a letter to the FCC that repealing net-neutrality protections “would cause immediate harm to the innovation economy.”

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai disagrees. “We are helping consumers and promoting competition,” Pai said before Thursday’s vote, according to the New York Times. “Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.”

Related

Jeff Sessions Faces Tough Cannabis Questions—From DOJ Interns

The degree of change consumers will experience will depend largely on the degree to which internet providers take advantage of the new rules. Comcast, which spent big on a social media campaign in support of the rollback, has pledged on numerous occasions to “not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content.”

Even if you take Comcast at its word—and you might want to ask a Comcast customer’s advice before you do that—a crucial term in its promise is “lawful.” Is cannabis content lawful? That’s a complicated question.

Related

Is CBD Oil Legal? Depends on Where You Are and Who You Ask

Presumably some content, like basic information about the cannabis plant, is above board even in the eyes of the feds. But increasingly in states with legal cannabis, the internet hosts much more than that. Some services now allow customers to place pre-order or delivery purchases, transactions that are clearly illegal under federal law. Even websites that sell bongs and bubblers are on shaky legal ground.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said his office will file a legal challenge to the FCC decision.

The rollback could hurt the cannabis industry in other ways, too. Trying to raise money for your cannabis startup? Slow speeds could limit your visibility to customers and investors, critics say, making growth and fundraising that much more difficult. The change could also give a leg up to larger companies—such as those from the agriculture, tobacco, or pharmaceutical industries—that could afford to pay for preferred treatment.

In a letter to the FCC, a group of more than 800 tech startups said the rollback would “directly impede an entrepreneur’s ability to ‘start a business, immediately reach a worldwide customer base, and disrupt an entire industry.’ Our companies should be able to compete with incumbents on the quality of our products and services, not our capacity to pay tolls to Internet access providers.”

Cannabis companies already face obstacles to reaching would-be customers on the internet. Companies like Facebook and Instagram have have routinely deactivated cannabis-related accounts, even those of state-licensed businesses.

The fight for net neutrality isn’t over yet. Immediately after the FCC’s vote Thursday, Washington state Attorney General Rob Ferguson announced that his office will file a legal challenge to the decision.

Related

Washington State Officials Vow to Fight Any Federal Crackdown

“Yesterday I sent a letter to the FCC asking them to delay their vote gutting net neutrality. Unfortunately they did not,” Ferguson said in a statement. “Today, I am announcing my intention to file a legal challenge to the FCC’s decision to roll back net neutrality, along with attorneys general across the country.”

He said his office will file a petition for review in the coming days.

Other opponents of the rollback have shifted their focus to Congress, which has the power to pass laws that would supersede the FCC regulations. Contact information for US Senators and House members is available online.

Ben Adlin's Bio Image

Ben Adlin

Ben Adlin is a Seattle-based writer and editor who specializes in cannabis politics and law. He was a news editor for Leafly from 2015-2019. Follow him on Twitter: @badlin

View Ben Adlin's articles

  • c-luv

    I heard all the same ‘warnings’ about net neutrality, before O-bomb-ya (Obama) decided to implement it. They predicted what we’ve been seeing lately, with mass censorship of opinion about anything that flies in the face of the globalist agenda. In particular, there are some very loud and accurate voices who are hugely critical of things that government and large corporations are doing. Those voices have literally been censored, while other voices continue to spill hatred and even death threats against a duly elected President never get censored or removed. This is currently happening, under Net Neutrality – which represents a very foul double standard! So, all I can say is that if this move returns us to what it was before, that’s a good place to start. If companies start throttling, or censoring or doing other unethical things, then we’ll (all of us) be all over them like stink on shit. Free Market rules, overall. This isn’t a Trump thing for me, as I wanted this before he even ran for office. In my opinion, as an industry, we’d be at more risk of censorship under Net Neutrality, than a free and open internet. But in either case, I don’t see our industry suffering because of this rollback. Ultimately, whether I’m right, or the critics of this plan are right, remains to be seen. Only time will tell.

    • Nick

      You know… You make a good point. However, you fail in making clear your motivations from the get-go by insulting our former president. You made your comment partisan, and created doubt of your intentions by doing so. It could have been a great comment.

    • Geezer Lifeson

      You lost me with your first two partisan sentences. “mass censorhip of opinion”? Any proof or evidence of that or just something you believe? Once the companies start throttling or censoring, how will you know and if you do know how will you get the word out in a throttled censored internet? The Chinese have to live with the “Great Firewall of China” controlled by their government, and we may live with a similar “Great Firewall of Crony Capitalism” without net neutrality.

  • The Resistance

    This is definitely concerning and something to watch. Hopefully this ruling is overturned in due course through either lawsuits, Congressional action, or another method.

    One question for Ben (great reporting btw) and readers is: what incentive do ISPs have to follow the law? In other words, why would they care to slow/block cannabis related sites?

    • badlin

      Very fair question. Speculating here, as it’s late on a Friday:

      1) Officials could ask them to.
      2) You’ve probably heard of alcohol and pharmaceutical companies spending money to campaign against legalization. What if those companies could pay to slow traffic to pro-cannabis sites?
      3) ISPs, with eyes on making money from the “green rush,” could push companies to pay them to ensure smooth, fast connections to cannabis-related sites.

      Curious what others have to say.