Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers must treat all the data on the internet equally and cannot discriminate or enforce speed regulations against individual consumers, websites, platforms or methods of communication. In other words, without net neutrality, internet service providers could now offer “bundles” similar to how television providers do for packages of channels on television.
The arguments for net neutrality are surrounded by the fact that internet should be a “public service” and that we should not restrict access or speed to anybody or for any individual website. This argument also brings up the fact that there could be an uneven playing field as smaller companies may not be able to pay these large fees to internet service providers to ensure that their websites do not fall prey to slow speeds. The arguments against net neutrality include an argument that, by revoking net neutrality, innovation will increase as the free market will take over and companies will now be driven to innovate in order to separate themselves from other companies on the internet. Also, those against net neutrality raise questions regarding over-regulation by the government and claim that the free market will do a much better job in regulating the internet than government could. In my opinion, while I do not feel very strongly either way, I believe that we should not have net neutrality and that it should have been repealed. However, while I do lean more towards not having net neutrality, I do see and understand the issues brought up by those who are in favor of it.
Personally, I do not believe that net neutrality is necessary and that our internet could be better off without it. As I have already stated, we have already seen how this “bundle” or “package” based internet could play out, as television has been doing this same exact business model for decades. Some users could pay extra for packages that include HBO, Starz or Showtime because the base cable package does not come with these services. I also believe that, with internet being totally regulated by the free market, innovation will increase as companies now have more incentive to compete for internet traffic against their competitors. In response to issues regarding providing a level playing field or discrimination against internet service providers, I would argue that internet giants will always have a “leg up” on smaller businesses, but that might not necessarily be a bad thing. With these giants being favored by internet service providers for paying large amounts of money to the providers to include high speeds on their websites, this could open up avenues of innovation for smaller companies to find other ways to compete with these giants. These companies might not be able to compete monetarily with these giants, but they can try and find other ways to compete and open up other avenues of innovation.
I do not believe that the internet is a “public service and fair access should be a basic right”. Again, I believe that this is similar to what the television model has been for decades and, with different bundles of cable offering different package, all television channels are not a basic right for everyone. I believe that the internet should take this type of model and that it will be for the better. I believe this because I have more trust in the free market being able to regulate the internet better than the government can.