Reading09: Net Neutrality
Net neutrality has always been a difficult issue for me. I usually tend to be skeptical of any sort of government regulation, but the idea of a multi-tiered Internet is not something I am comfortable with on the surface. To be completely honest, my views on the subject tend to shift every time I think about it, so what follows will be the current iteration of my constantly evolving position.
According to Amy Nordrum in her IEEE Spectrum article, network neutrality is the idea that “ISPs such as Verizon and Comcast ought to deliver all online content to consumers in the same way, without granting preferential treatment to any particular content.” If net neutrality rules are enacted (they actually were by the FCC in 2015 before being repealed in 2017), ISPs would be forbidden from creating a system in which content creators would be forced to pay for higher speeds, which would essentially create a higher cost fast lane. The heart of the net neutrality debate centers on whether a multitiered system would help or hurt innovation.
I think there is definitely a strong case to be made that a multitiered system would be bad for innovation. For instance, as noted in the Wired article, if internet providers blocked or severely limited video streaming in the mid-2000s, we might not have Netflix or YouTube today. I agree that allowing internet providers to choose favorites is a definite threat to innovation. However, I also agree with the argument that creating a fast lane is a completely reasonable practice with a lot of precedent. Highways often have separate tolled lanes where the speed limit is higher, and shipping companies usually offer different shipping speeds at different prices. Almost nobody is uncomfortable with those arrangements, so it is definitely reasonable to ask why the Internet is different.
Considering these arguments, I think I come out on the side of a limited form of net neutrality. The scariest part to me about ISPs being able to price discriminate or even refuse to carry content is that it would theoretically give them the ability to suppress or promote certain content (or even speech). Net neutrality would prevent this. Especially given that the Internet is basically a requirement for modern life, I think all bytes should be treated equally. And though I tend to be wary of more regulation, I think net neutrality is probably a necessity akin to antitrust regulations.
However, there is one element of full net neutrality that I think should not be implemented. Some ISPs have created payment systems where their own content does not count against data limits. For instance, AT&T does not count programs streamed through its own DirecTV Now service against customers’ monthly data limit. I see no reason why a company should be forbidden from promoting its own content. Under my version of net neutrality, AT&T’s program would be allowed, but it would not be legal for a different content provider to pay AT&T to have their content created similarly. I think this would be a decent compromise to still give ISPs some freedom while keeping the Internet fair.