Economic Democracy and the Quest of Net Neutrality in Indonesia

Net neutrality has played critical issues in internet-based businesses, as it may stop Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating against certain legal internet contents, platforms, or services. This study argued that net neutrality has a strong relationship with economic democracy as the constitutional basis of the Indonesian economy. This study examined net neutrality and considered its possible adoption in Indonesia under economic democracy by justifying economic democracy required the state to build an inclusive economy as per political economy theory. It used a socio-legal method through an interdisciplinary study of law and political economy with conceptual and comparative approaches. The study showed that the idea of the internet as a level playing field was founding net neutrality. For instance, in the United States and across different Global South countries, net neutrality relied on three orders of no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization, which provided equal access for everyone to create their opportunities. At this point, economic democracy and net neutrality made their cross-cut. Like net neutrality, a discriminatory action against a content provider violated economic democracy, where policy-makers formulated economic policies to enable a level playing field for economic actors. Minimum barriers to entering the market might create such a level playing field. Without net neutrality, ISPs could carry out arbitrary actions and abuse of power for business interests. This study concluded that the adoption of net neutrality into formal regulation created a positive climate of innovation in the digital business ecosystem in Indonesia.


I. INTRODUCTION
Net neutrality is proposed as a foundational principle to create an inclusive and level playing field for internet-based businesses. The key proposal of net neutrality is the advocacy of zero-pricing to the internet, which prohibited the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from charging the extra expense to the developer for delivering their contents or services through the broadband ISPs provided. 1 Then, net neutrality relies on three critical orders: no blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. It aims to ensure that everyone can start a business online with fewer barriers without fear of being decapitated by well-established platforms with more significant capital. 2 Several countries have adopted the principle as an internet-related public policy, including those in the Global South.
In Indonesia, net neutrality is relatively an under-discussed topic. It is searched less than 100 times on Google every month. 3 At the same time, only a few legal studies in Indonesia have addressed this issue; among them were written by Permana 4 and Yosuadi. 5 Permana argued network neutrality has not yet become the regulatory standard in internet governance. 6 Neither Law 11/2008 of Electronic Information and Transaction Law and its amendment nor Law 5/1999 of Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Anti-monopoly Law) outlined and regulated net neutrality. 7 In the meantime, Yosuadi At the beginning of its presence in Indonesia, Netflix was immediately blocked by the Telkom Group because it was deemed to contain content that violated moral norms. Netflix was also considered not to have a business license to operate in Indonesia. This dispute led to a trial by the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU) panel. In its decision, KPPU's panel stated that Telkom Group had not made a mistake. KPPU acknowledged that Telkom Group discriminated against Netflix by blocking users' access to their content while accessing another platform with similar services without barriers. However, KPPU was not considering such an action as a violation of the existing Anti-monopoly Law. 9 In the end, KPPU released the Telkom Group from discriminatory charges.
Regardless of this final decision, the Telkom Group vs. Netflix case offered a critical precedent, raising the academic discourse of implementing net neutrality in Indonesia. Yosuadi's research focusing on regulating Over The Top (OTT) companies such as Netflix described this issue in a broader perspective, within the framework of the Indonesian economic constitution, as the latter should stand as a benchmark for every proposed regulation. 10 By its design, net neutrality is strongly related to economic democracy. As per definition, economic democracy is described by several characteristics, including the economy structured as a joint effort under kinship, and every citizen may develop their potential, initiative, and creativity within the boundaries that are not detrimental to the public 8 Yosuadi, supra note 5 at 1. interest. 11 The analysis of net neutrality under this economic constitution framework benefits the future proposal of regulatory change.
There will be a comparison between net neutrality practices, debates, and legal frameworks in the United States and several Global South countries like Chile, Brazil, and India. Hart considered the United States was the pioneer of this net neutrality debate. 12 Meanwhile, the experiences of various Global South countries offer a valuable lesson. Indonesia, Chile, Brazil, and India have a similarity in having a huge percentage of internet users among their population. 13 Several cases preceded the net neutrality in these countries with the same pattern as the Telkom Group vs. Netflix case. Brazil formally adopted net neutrality after several illegal throttling actions against Skype by two local ISPs. 14 Learning from such experiences, Indonesia may follow its fellow Global South country moves by adopting the principle into a formal regulation.
This study aimed to examine net neutrality and consider its possible adoption in Indonesia under economic democracy. To that end, the analysis will begin by describing economic democracy itself as a fundamental constitutional framework of the Indonesian economy at large. The section after will comprehensively overview net neutrality, from the internet economic system to why the principle of net neutrality is crucial to be highlighted. It will also analyze the adoption of net neutrality in the United States, Chile, Brazil, and India. This section will emphasize the alignment of economic democracy and net neutrality to encourage implementing net neutrality in Indonesia.

II. METHODS
This study used a socio-legal method under the qualitative approach through an interdisciplinary study of law and political economy analysis. 15 An interdisciplinary approach became important because net neutrality was a structural intervention within legal frameworks to create a fair and competitive digital economy ecosystem. Furthermore, this study adopted a conceptual approach by comprehending related statutes and legal cases with established net neutrality and comparing net neutrality regulations in the United States and several Global South countries, including Indonesia. 16

III. ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY AS THE FRAMEWORK OF THE INDONESIAN ECONOMY
The term of economic democracy, as used in Article 33 (4) of the 1945 Constitution, has rooted in a long history of constitutional discourse, creating several different interpretations. Before the amendment of the constitution, economic democracy was assumed to expand people's participation in activities and management of economic resources. 17 The policy-maker was designing the economy to pay more attention to the interests of the wider community. 18 The Indonesian Constitutional Court interpreted economic democracy as state control over production that affects citizens' livelihood through proper and effective regulation, supervision, and management. 19 Losses in production activities are still considered efficient as long as being subsidized and do not waste social resources. In other words, the state carries out losses in production to achieve the greatest prosperity for all the people, 20 so that economic democracy is understood as the state of the government in ensuring equitable economic distribution.
According to Rahardjo, economic democracy has two frameworks, including inputs and outputs. Under the input framework, the distribution of access to economic resources, capital, and factors of production, including technology, indicates democracy in the economy. The key to economic democracy is equal distribution of employment opportunities and people's incomes. 21 The system may allow workers to provide input and added value in the production process. On the output side, economic democracy permits fair income distribution. 22 Dewantara interpreted economic democracy in Article 33 (4) of the 1945 Constitution as an economic system driven by the government's market mechanism. The government's role is not limited to a regulator. 23 Under a democratic design, the government was also obliged to prevent market failures, externalities, and inequalities. The government is empowering all economic actors in a fair and balanced manner towards economic growth and equity. 24 Economic democracy is established at the top of three foundations: distribution of assets, democratic economy organization, and equal collaboration. 25 Yustika and Baksh emphasized that the democratic economic plan needs to create a level playing field between economic actors at the micro-level. 26 Fair and healthy business competition is needed so that every economic actor gets a commensurate place.
In recent political economy discourses, such a healthy economic structure is also known as an inclusive economic institution. Under this economic 20 Ibid. 21  institution, many people are encouraged to participate in economic activities, make their own economic choice, and unleash their top ability and performance. The economic structure fulfills several criteria to ensure its inclusivity, including secure private property rights, a fair legal system, and a provision. 27 It also provides a level playing field that allows talents to become the best version of themselves. 28 Consequently, it encourages the creation of an ecosystem that allows innovation and efficiency.
In contrast to inclusive economic institutions, another type of economic institution is identified by rent-seeking activities within the economic system. Rent-seeking activity is indicated by the acts of an individual or a group to increase their earnings by influencing the legislation and policymaking process. By creating deep connections to the top government officials, the rent-seekers can obstruct and control the normal supply and demand chain according to their will. 29 Acemoglu and Robinson called economic structures is dominated by rentseekers as extractive economic institutions. The term indicated its core activity, which extracts prosperity and wealth for the benefit of a few. 30 Extractive political institutions, which concentrate political power among the elites with less transparency, also enable and develop these extractive economic institutions. In practice, the interest of the political elites is determining the economic activities, typically by extracting available resources from the whole society. 31 As the economic and political system loosens the power of the government, these elites emerge as the rentseekers. 32 The extractive economic institutions emphasize the collusion between the corrupted political system and the closed economic system.
A classic political economy model called redistributive combines congruous to such a non-inclusive economic institution is also worth considering. In such a model, economic resources, productive assets, and capital are limited in the hands of a few. A closed political system may create redistributive combines, nurtured by a vague legal system or the absence of the rule of law in the economic system. 33 As the barriers become more significant, it creates a more decisive impetus to influence the government policy for these rent-seekers benefit. In the end, there are two proposed actions to prevent such extractive activities, which are by removing the barriers to enter the market and by increasing the competition in it. 34 Rent-seekers will flourish when access to enter the market is blocked.
The discourse on economic democracy within the framework of the Indonesian constitution is often associated with the management of Indonesia's natural resources. 35 The original article regulated that the state shall control the earth, water, and natural resources of Indonesia and use them to serve the prosperity of the people. 36 In addition, the constitution designed the economy centrally under the management of the state. The state is given the authority to formulate policies (beleid), to regulate (regelendaad), to administer (bestuurdaad), to manage (beheerdaad), and to supervise resources. 37 The essential economic sectors and related to the public interests are controlled by the state. 38 It shows how the provisions of Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution were very focused on extractive economic management. However, in the current technological disruption, economic democracy in Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution should be expanded and be contextualized as the fundamentals for Indonesia's digital economy.

A. The Economic Nature of the Internet
After building the digital economy framework under economic democracy, this study moved to discuss the digital economy's sole infrastructure: the internet. There has been a debate over the economic nature of the internet. Its move from a military innovation into a privately managed resource marks transforming the internet from a government-owned commodity into private goods. This shifting is the critical determiner of the net neutrality proposal. This principle stands as an effort to limit the possibility of predatory acts to emerging businesses and innovation in it.
As already well known, the history of the internet started as a United States military project. In 1966, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) developed the infant version of the internet under the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET). 39 It took almost 30 years before the privatization of the internet began. In 1990, the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) conducted a discussion of its privatization. NSF then shut down its NSF Network (NSFNET) in 1995, starting to privatize the internet's backbone. 40 In Indonesia, the first internet protocol was registered by the University of Indonesia in 1988, under the name Universitas Indonesia Network Laboratory (UI-NETLAB) (192.41.206/24). Not long after, the first commercial ISP was operating under IndoNet, through a dial-up system, in 1994. One year later, the Department of Post and Telecommunication issued the first ISP license for IndoNet. 41 The privatizations were rapidly developing as the key infrastructure to the new digital business model.
This new digital business model contains three main characters: informational, global, and networked. The digital business is considered informational since its economic structure and activity are dependent on the actors' ability to produce, develop, and administer knowledge-based information in the most efficient ways. The digital business is considered global, as it is implemented globally through a network between economic actors. The digital business is also networked because productivity and competition between actors are generated and provoked within the abstract network without considering the physical presence. 42 Castells choose the term informational economy to wrap this whole new economic model.
Indonesia is not a subaltern to the trend. The nation is already paving its way as a major player in the region in the disruptive digital economy. To be noted, more than 73% of its 274,9 million Indonesian residents in 2021 will be internet users. 43 In 2020, the total valuation of digital economies in Indonesia reached no less than US$44 billion, while the number may triple to US$124 billion by 2025. 44 Indonesia will become the country with the most considerable digital economy value in Southeast Asia.
However, along with its rapid industrial growth, stakeholders still question the ability of Indonesian regulation to adjust to these new trends. Dadzie was suggesting that it took a change in policy and regulation to enable inclusive economic development. 45 Without such a structural change, nations in the Global South like Indonesia may face a considerable obstacle to innovating and participating globally. 46 This situation is a problem that occurs in many countries, including Indonesia.
By this point, the transformation brought by the digital economy has its political-economic consequences. political structure and policies produced and vice versa. 47 From the political economy perspective, the economy can be seen as a way to act, while politics provide the space to start such an action. 48 Market mechanisms, prices, and investments are being analyzed by considering the political scene of where such an instrument is enabled.
In terms of digital economics, two keywords link the critical relationship between the economy and the power structure: profitability and competitiveness. Castells stated that the economic actors are mainly motivated by profitability and their business growth on one side of the play.
To support such demands, the government will set its orientation to maximize competitiveness in its economic realm. The combination of these two is the critical determinant of technological innovation and productivity growth. 49 At this point, the digital economy fits with economic democracy in Indonesia. As already discussed, these principles assign the government responsibilities to minimize barriers to entering the market. 50 It is aligned to maintain a competitive climate for the business.

B. Net Neutrality
Net neutrality means that ISPs should treat all contents, data, or information circulating on the internet equally without discrimination. Initially, two types of discrimination may occur in the internet service business scheme. The first is the positive type, where the content or an application gets preferential treatment compared to the others. The second is the negative type when access blockade or bandwidth reduction is hindering a content distribution. 51 The advocacy of net neutrality tries to tackle both issues. or application. In this framework, internet access is considered a fundamental right that lies inherently in individuals. Second, like an order that prevents ISPs from favoritism over contents, it's faster delivery than other types of content sharing the same network. 52 The latter is mainly embraced in the United States and became the main conceptual framework for this research.
According to Wu, net neutrality aims to create and maintain a fair and competitive climate on the internet as a business playing field managed by the private sector. Therefore, the space must be neutral so that its competition remains meritocratic. 53 The presence of regulation by the government aims to stop the short-term interests of the playing field owner from preventing the best product or service from reaching its users.
One of the further proposals from net neutrality is zero-pricing to enter the internet for developers. It postulates a prohibition for ISPs to charge developers and internet content creators fees for sending information to consumers. 54 According to Lee and Wu, the internet network design does not differentiate content providers and their users. Consequently, content providers can reach other users, who can also act like users. 55 This system prevents additional fees from being charged to them.
Legal practitioners in Indonesia have already identified several issues to the competition in the digital business scene. First, the potential for abuse of dominant position. This dominant position may give economic actors significant market power through control and full access to consumer data. Second, the potential for cartels or deals. acquisitions, and consolidations. 56 Net neutrality then added another dimension over the competitiveness issues in the digital business.
The problems that raise net neutrality advocacy are not entirely a whole new concern. Before net neutrality, scholars have discussed several technical principles for better policies, which may drive the nature of the internet as a level playing field and a sandbox for innovation. For example, Lessig proposed the end-to-end principle by referring to the internet as a network of networks that runs through privately owned wires. The end-to-end principle emphasizes that the network should be conditioned as a "stupid network," as it cannot distinguish the information or data passing its 'body'. 57 It prevents the network from automatically discriminating against such things. In short, the internet is designed to be transparent to applications, so it constitutes internet transparency. This transparent nature enables innovation and creativity on the internet. As the network's intelligence relies on the end users, millions of internet users worldwide decentralize innovation into their hands. 58 Consequently, it lowers the cost to produce and generate new innovative ideas.
Private actors manage most internet services, and the government is responsible for requiring transparency in data-driven algorithmic technology. 59 Brown and Bagley believed transparency has an essential role in creating incentives to improve consumers' literacy over a product and prevent unlawful acts on the internet, besides the transparency nature as fundamental to innovation. 60 It should constitute the market competition

A. Net Neutrality in the United States
As pointed out above, the United States has become the pioneer in the discussion of net neutrality. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) of the United States has implemented the principle into formal regulations. However, these policies have been overturned repeatedly, either by court decisions or by leadership changes within the FCC. Net neutrality is strongly associated with an attempt to regulate ISPs and broadband policy. 62 The long journey of the net neutrality policy in the United States is started by the confusion over the ISP's status under The Communication Act, whether it is information services or common carriers. The second categorization allows the FCC to apply a comprehensive regulatory approach to ISPs. 63 In other words, the choice between information services or common carriers may affect the FCC jurisdiction over ISPs.
Common carriers are well-known public services guidance from common law systems. Common carriers are preventing a public carrier from treating its payload differently and discriminatively. In short, everything a carrier brought should be treated equally. In contrast, a private carrier can collect profit by discriminating against its payload based on its ability to pay. investment. Second, entry control, where the regulated carriers need to obtain a license from the regulatory bodies before serving the public. Third, control over price structure, where the carriers are not allowed to discriminate their customer through rate differentiation. 65 These characteristics conditioned common carriers to focus on providing equal service to their users rather than pursuing profit margins. unlawful throttling. 69 The new policy introduces several new rights, including access to the internet as a level playing field. Open Internet Order also recognizes the ISPs' right to manage their networks under fair business principles; and regulation of mobile broadband. 70 However, after an appeal submitted by Verizon, the United States Courts of Appeal ruled that FCC had no jurisdiction to enact such a policy. 71 Interestingly, this second defeat did not make the FCC rest the idea of net neutrality.
In 2015, the FCC made another move by reclassifying ISPs as common carriers under the New Open Internet Order. Within this new policy, FCC implemented three new derivative orders of net neutrality. First, no blocking, where consumers who subscribe to the internet in retail must obtain services and access according to their price for all legal content on the internet. Second, no throttling, where ISPs may not slow down access to legal internet content. Third, no paid prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when an ISPs accepts payment in any form to set up its network to provide benefits to the manager of certain content, applications, services, or devices. 72 Not long after its initial release, the New Open Internet Order received objections from ISP's company, leading to a lawsuit to the United States Courts of Appeal. administration repealed the newly elected FCC officials. 74 Since then, FCC has not been issuing new policies to re-implement net neutrality.

B. Net Neutrality in Chile
Even though pioneering the debates on net neutrality, the United States has not become the first country in the world that implement the principle into a formal regulation. On this occasion, Chile was leapfrogging the United States. It enacted Law No. 20453 of 2010 on Consecrates the Principle of Network Neutrality for Consumers and Internet Users (Net Neutrality Law) in 2010. 75 It contains three articles that regulate the relations between users and ISPs.
The Net Neutrality Law regulates that any individuals or enterprise that provides commercial internet connectivity services should not arbitrarily block, interfere, discriminate, hinder, or restrict the right of any internet user to use, send, receive or offer any content, application, or legal service through the internet, as well as any other type of legal activity through the network. The ISPs must offer each user an appropriate internet service. 76 It is prohibited to arbitrarily distinguish content, applications, or services, based on the source of its origin or ownership. However, public telecommunications concessionaires and ISPs may block access to certain contents, applications, or services if the users request and at their expense. 77 In no case, this blocking may arbitrarily affect the providers of services and applications provided on the internet.
ISPs may also not limit the user's right to use any kind of instruments or devices on the network, as long as they are legal and do not damage or impair the network or the quality of the service. ISPs are also obliged to offer parental control services for content that violates the law, morals, or good custom at the expense of users who request it, as long as users receive advance information in a clear and precise manner regarding the scope of such services. 78 For the protection of the rights of internet users, the Undersecretary of Telecommunications may sanction the infractions of the legal obligations associated with the implementation and operation of the Net Neutrality Law. 79 At this point, The Net Neutrality Law also enabled the law enforcement powers to the regulators.
It is interesting to note that in 2014, debates arose over the implementation of net neutrality. The Chilean Government ordered the ISPs to stop offering free access to social media (also known as zero-rated social media apps). The regulator was considering such a strategy violates the Net Neutrality Law, as it indirectly promotes selected social media platforms. 80 As already mentioned, the Chilean Net Neutrality Law prohibits ISPs from distinguishing contents, applications, or services. blocked the service. The latter party denied such an accusation but later admitted it. 83 Another ISP reported implementing a similar approach.

C. Net Neutrality in Brazil
The Brazilian government enacted the Marco Civil of Internet on April 23, 2014. The law ensured a series of users' rights related to internet activities, including the transparency of the internet connection policies by the providers and internet applications. 84 Only court rulings can waive and put aside this guarantee. Brazil subsequently stipulated that ISPs, on their responsibility for transmission, switching, or routing, are obliged to treat any data package equally without distinguishing content, source, destination, service, terminal, or application. The president will supervise any occurring discrimination or traffic restriction after listening to the opinions of the Internet Management Committee and the National Telecommunications Administration. There will be an evaluation of the necessary technical requirements. 85 In such incidents, the person in charge must avoid causing harm to users.
ISPs also must act in a proportionate, transparent, and fair manner. ISPs must provide users with preliminary information on traffic management and mitigation measures. This rule includes those related to network security that should provide services under non-discriminatory business conditions and not engage in anti-competitive behavior. 86 It is also prohibited to block, monitor, filter, or analyze the content of data packages when providing internet connections, whether it is expensive or accessible, and in terms of transmission, switching, or routing. 87 This strict net neutrality rule limits ISP's companies' potential extra benefit by implementing extra charges for prioritizing contents in the data traffic within their network. 88 It is not surprising that many of those companies show their objection to Marco Civil of the Internet.
Pros and cons have been rising ever since. Those who supported net neutrality argued that the internet should be considered a basic need. Also, net neutrality was considered an essential foundation for a level playing field on the internet, either its users or emerging businesses. In addition, it was regarded to protect new technology and innovation. Meanwhile, those against it argued that net neutrality would affect free access to the internet, as it suppressed the ISPs' profit margin. 92 Consequently, it restrained the development of internet infrastructures.
The Indian Government made the first structural move over net neutrality in 2016. At that time, The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) enacted a policy that prevented discrimination in internet services tariffs under the prohibition of discriminatory tariffs for data service regulation, 2016. 93 The policy stated that ISPs are not allowed to apply the different tariffs-based treatment. The policy did not allow anyone to make illegal dealings with anyone in the interest of applying discriminatory tariffs, except for the tariffs over closed networks. 94 The regulations also encouraged and permitted the ISPs to cut down data tariffs in accessing emergency services or on the occasion of public emergencies. 95 In 2018, the Indian Government adopted what is considered the most substantial net neutrality application into regulation. In the newest regulation, TRAI bans the act of blocking, throttling, and zero-rating data policy within a particular scope. Also, it is not allowed to prioritize specific contents or information with a more considerable data speed. 96 This rule marked a new era in implementing net neutrality in India.

VI. ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY AND THE QUEST OF NET NEUTRALITY IN INDONESIA
In Indonesia, there are still no regulations that fit the characteristics of a net neutrality, emphasizing the limitation of ISPs in managing content traffic in their network. Neither the Electronic Information and Transaction Law and its amendment nor Anti-monopoly Law adopted net neutrality into its materials. 97 This situation left a void in Indonesian internet regulation. However, the Electronic Information and Transaction Law contained a regulation on internet throttling and blocking that was almost similar to the main narrative of net neutrality debates. Under the Electronic Information and Transaction Law, the government shall protect public interests from any activity that may threaten public orders due to the mistreatment of internet services. 98 The law also gives the Indonesian government the authority to prevent illegal internet content dispersion, deployment, and transmission. 99 In conducting such actions, the law also authorizes the government to terminate internet access or order ISPs. 100 Under this regulatory construction, ISPs can only carry out the internet access restrictions under the government's instructions. Even though the case of Telkom Group vs. Netflix has rested, the discussions remain to continue. KPPU's decision recognized the Telkom Group act of blocking access against Netflix as a form of discrimination. 108 By referring to the earlier discussion, such an action violates the economic democracy's main principles. Under the guidance of democracy, the policymaker should formulate the economic policies to enable a level playing field for economic actors by minimizing barriers to entering the market. Democracy keeps the digital economy inclusive to prevent domination by a few old economic powers, elites, and rent-seekers. Therefore, at this point, economic democracy and net neutrality made their cross-cut. In the United States, Chile, Brazil, and India, discrimination and entry barriers are essential that net neutrality seeks to prevent. Net neutrality was further translated into the order of no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. 109 Since its inception, the idea of net neutrality has sought to advocate for a level playing field for innovators and digital business practitioners; discriminatory practices are contrary to that spirit.
Without proper regulation, such a problem experienced by Netflix is very likely to occur against start-ups or platform companies with smaller business scales. ISPs can illegally block or limit bandwidth to access any targeted content or service. KPPU's decision was also addressing these possibilities. 110 While formal regulation adopts net neutrality, it can support innovation in the digital business ecosystem in Indonesia. In the future, net neutrality may prevent discrimination against emerging businesses with huge potential. Then, in the Telkom Group vs. Netflix case, KPPU may argue that the service blockade by Telkom Group did not much affect Netflix's revenue stream. However, such an excuse cannot be generalized in every case. While ISPs apply a similar blocking policy to emerging platforms, it will directly stop their growth, and such unfortunate events may set adverse precedents in Indonesia's innovation.

VII. CONCLUSION
In the digital disruption era, Indonesia's digital business ecosystem will continue to grow. Along with preparing physical infrastructures such as the internet and electricity and reliable human resources, the government also needs to enact regulations that are non-discriminatory and friendly to innovation. Net neutrality constituted a framework for the internet to become a level playing field for every economic actor. In the United States and across different Global South countries such as Chile, Brazil, and India, net neutrality relies on three orders of no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. It is congruent with economic democracy as the core guidance for the Indonesian economic system. The study has shown that net neutrality aligns with economic democracy, as the first enables meritocracy and fair competition within the internet. Without net neutrality, ISPs have the potential to carry out arbitrary actions and conduct an abuse of power against the internet contents, platforms, and services, for their business interests. Therefore, the government needs to consider adopting net neutrality into formal law seriously.