In the digital age, the ability to have access to Internet Services during a natural hazard such as the LA Fire only highlights the illogicality of the other side’s argument.
Author: Ken Chan, Executive Director @ DigitalFreedom.Now
When wildfires erupt in Los Angeles, neighbors rush to check on each other, families scramble to finalize evacuation plans, and friends across town stay glued to their devices for updates—every second and every connection counts. In these critical moments, Net Neutrality isn’t just about technological fairness; it’s about ensuring every call for help, every emergency alert, and every loved one’s text comes through without delay or discrimination.
Yet, a recent appellate court ruling questions whether ISPs can prioritize profit over lifesaving communication, putting both the city’s resilience and its residents’ peace of mind at risk. This blog post explores how Net Neutrality safeguards these compassionate human ties, why the LA wildfires illustrate its importance, and what we must do to uphold open internet access for all.
The Stakes: Why Net Neutrality Matters for LA Wildfires
Los Angeles residents are contending with fast-moving wildfires that demand swift evacuations, up-to-the-minute fire mapping, and constant communication with emergency services. Net Neutrality is vital because it ensures all data is treated equally, preventing ISPs from deliberately slowing or blocking access to certain websites or applications. Without Net Neutrality, evacuation orders could be delayed if they are not deemed a “priority,” and emergency calls or service apps could be throttled at the ISP’s discretion.
- Real-Time Evacuation Alerts: Fast access to real-time alerts gives LA residents a clear path to safety. Net Neutrality protects these life-saving messages from being sidelined by other paid or “fast-lane” content.
- Uninterrupted Emergency Services: When every second counts, first responders and residents rely on stable video feeds, digital mapping tools, and voice calls. Net Neutrality ensures consistent speeds and bandwidth even under heavy internet traffic.
- Community Communication: In a crisis, neighbors share updates and shelter information through social media and local forums. If those platforms were deprioritized, community-driven relief efforts could be undermined.
The Wrong Side of History – Again?
The necessity of Net Neutrality during disasters is not just theoretical. One of the most telling incidents occurred in 2018, when the Santa Clara County Fire Department had its data connection severely throttled by Verizon while battling a major wildfire. The fire department had to upgrade its data plan on the spot to restore speeds—directly hampering rescue operations. This incident underscores why a neutral, open internet is critical:
- Throttling and Paid Prioritization Risks: ISPs can slow essential services if they fall outside specific plans or fail to pay additional premiums.
- Emergency Response Setbacks: First responders need reliable connectivity for real-time situational awareness and direct communication with local communities.
Without Net Neutrality, these dangerous precedents could become more common, putting public safety at risk. In LA’s current wildfire situation, any connectivity bottlenecks could endanger residents who rely on live updates, digital maps, and public alerts for immediate action.
The Limits of Relying on Executive Branch Interpretation
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) once held robust authority to enforce Net Neutrality under Title II of the Communications Act, classifying broadband providers as “telecommunications services.” However, the appellate court relying on the Loper Bright ruling that severely limits the Executive Branch’s ability to interpret law, hence neutered the FCC’s ability to regulate ISPs as common carriers.
Let’s use our “Three Jewels” Framework (Socrates’ Persuasion) to example the impact if it stays:
Logos
1. Reduced Regulatory Oversight: The FCC no longer has clear jurisdiction to prohibit blocking, throttling, or discriminatory paid prioritization.
2. Public Safety Vulnerabilities: ISPs may legally reshape traffic priorities, potentially sidelining emergency communications in favor of more lucrative commercial streams.
Ethos
1. Moral Duty of Equal Access: In times of crisis, providing uninterrupted internet service to first responders and the public is a moral imperative. Net Neutrality holds ISPs to this standard.
2. Financial vs. Public Safety: Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can base traffic allocation on revenue models. In an emergency, critical updates could be delayed because they are not part of a profitable “fast lane.”
Pathos
1. Fast Lane (or Pay More for the Same): The opponents of Net Neutrality did get one thing right – which is that consumers will have more choices, if we count having to pay more for your Internet services as another “better choice” for the majority of the population.
2. Long-Term Community Impact: As climate change intensifies natural disasters, ignoring Net Neutrality now could erode public trust, hamper effective responses, and cost lives.
What Should be the Threshold to become Essential Services?
Just like your mobile device where each generation of network upgrade provides a. burst of excitement and speed improvements – our desire to have more and better content, use of AI and cloud services means that the expectation of what is considered “acceptable essential services” vs. “optional luxury upgrades” will continue to compress.
Let’s take a look at the current consumer pattern on mobile device:
- Over 76% of Americans depend on mobile devices for critical alerts.
- 45% faster emergency response times have been reported when digital communications are unrestricted.
- Communities with limited or throttled internet access face 3x higher risks during natural disasters.
These numbers reinforce how essential Net Neutrality is for public safety. If Los Angeles residents cannot receive timely evacuation orders or communicate with emergency services because of ISP-imposed traffic constraints, catastrophic outcomes are more likely.
Conclusion: Safeguarding Public Safety Through Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality is more than just a policy term or a rallying cry for consumer rights; it is a life-or-death matter for Los Angeles communities facing the immediate threat of wildfires. When critical evacuation alerts, real-time fire maps, and emergency calls risk being slowed or deprioritized, lives are on the line. The 2018 Verizon throttling incident in Santa Clara County Fire Department is a clear warning of the risks when network neutrality isn’t upheld.
Whether you’re a first responder on the ground or a resident who needs to know if you’re in the fire’s path, Net Neutrality remains a vital safeguard. To keep LA safe, we must advocate for policies that classify ISPs under Title II authority, preserve the FCC’s power to prevent discriminatory practices, and uphold the principle that all traffic—especially during emergencies—must be treated equally.
The next natural disaster won’t pause while we debate the finer points of internet regulation. The time to protect Net Neutrality is now. By supporting legislation, raising public awareness, and working hand-in-hand with advocates, we can ensure an open, fair internet that saves lives when it matters most.