I’m not sure where I stand in terms of net neutrality. It seems to be an interesting mix of problems, and there’s technically websites that dominant the web space anyway. I can’t quite come to terms with being in favor or against it, because on one hand, it makes sense to charge different amounts of something to a service or content that does need more support like a video streaming service compared to visiting a website. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of net neutrality being taken away to suddenly allow essentially a censored Internet. The extreme would be if ISPs start blocking or intentionally slowing down access to certain websites or services online. However, what’s more likely to happen is something like the analogy of putting your foot in the door. For example, AT&T already doesn’t count DirectTV service as part of the data plan, but any other streaming service does take up data.
There’s one point that some articles have called ambiguous, which was whether net neutrality prevents innovation. Preventing innovation is kind of bullshit. I feel as though innovation actually works when there’s less options. It’s kind of like how if there’s more flavors on a menu for choosing ice cream, you have a harder time thinking about what to choose. Innovation works by getting around obstacles, and it doesn’t stop because some rule said it can’t be done. Also, in terms of burdening corporations, then that also sounds like a space for something innovative to pop up in. There’s a lot of problems that have a need for innovation, and all I’m saying is that there’s companies that have proven themselves in that department compared to others instead of taking it out on customer service and making that worse.
So the ISP companies saying that they would be able to put more funding into better infrastructure of their service seems more sketchy compared to the other side of tech giants (like Google, Facebook, etc.) where they have proven themselves over and over again to come out with new products, new ideas, and new features.
But I can’t decide how I feel about net neutrality, because I believe that there’s already better ideas in the works.
Also, in terms of innovation, I really hope that one day, net neutrality laws won’t matter in the end with the idea of a decentralized internet. If Internet access isn’t owned by giant corporations and is instead given to the users, then that really allows fair access to come to play. If the Internet was instead, accessible on each person’s computer, then that allows for a true competitive market, since everyone’s a player and a playee.
In terms of the Internet and access to it being a basic human right, I wish it was. I think it would certainly boost the standard of living throughout the world. However, this isn’t the case, as the tools needed for such access can cost a lot to low socioeconomic families. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not uncommon for people to go through life without the Internet for most of their life, and that certainly does put a damper on people’s collective knowledge.