Net Neutrality is the what keeps the internet neutral. By that, I mean it implies that all internet data should be accessible to all despite the internet service provider they are paying. Net Neutrality keeps internet service providers from favoring certain websites and purposely slowing down or blocking others. It also could mean that companies could block you from using VPN’s or certain wifi routers. Net Neutrality is in the best interest of web based companies who depend on their customers being able to access their websites. It is not in the best interest of internet providers who could potentially strike deals with certain companies or get more money from customers by charging them for access to certain things.
People argue that Net Neutrality hinders innovation. Without net neutrality big companies can take total control over your internet use. They can decide what websites you can and cannot access and what websites load faster than others. They can charge users for higher speeds and better experiences. They can make it impossible for new competitors to have a fair shot at gaining exposure to new customers. They can stifle others opinions by blocking opposing views and content. Net Neutrality makes for an open internet for all ensuring fair competition for all companies new and old. People who are argue against Net Neutrality believe it is “another political tool used to reward select groups at the expense of others” according to Being Libertarian.com. They argue that without Net Neutrality, companies like Time Warner, Comcast, and AT&T could charge the larger companies (like Netflix, Google, etc.) more than smaller companies because they use more of the internet services. These people believe that Net Neutrality is more government regulations in a place where government regulations do not need to be.
I think both arguments have valid points, but neither really have answers to each other concerns. Both sides argue that Net neutrality or no net neutrality is bad for smaller businesses. One side thinks that giving big businesses control will leave the little business in the dust. The other side argues that if big businesses had control they could charge the larger companies more money than smaller companies because they use more of the services and broadband. Both sides of the argument think they can fix the same problem by doing exactly opposite things. This topic is incredibly hard to take a stance on, because I am not sure that either side is entirely right and with the political climate right now its either pick a side and support it fully, or your opinion doesn’t matter. If both sides realized they are fighting the same battles, maybe they could come together to solve those problems, but instead both sides think they are right, and only they are right, and the other side’s opinions are invalid and wrong.
I agree that maybe companies that use more bandwidth should have to pay more for their services. The analogy from Being Libertarian.com about wear and tear on roads between cars and 18-wheelers really puts the problem into perspective. But I also agree that maybe some regulations do need to be put into place in order to prevent the other bad things that no Net Neutrality could create. So I guess you could say I am in favor of SOME net neutrality, but with limits on regulation.
If I had to implement Net Neutrality, I would focus on ensuring fair competition exists for all companies. If you use more resources, you should pay more. That is a valid argument from the no Net Neutrality side. But I also do not think companies should be able to limit the customer’s experience, or exclude the option for new companies to compete. I also agree with the no Net Neutrality side that too many regulations can be bad, and complicate things. I think the regulations should be more about ensuring fair competition (already an important staple of our economy) and ensuring that customers have their basic rights (freedom to browse the internet).