Question: From the readings, what exactly is Net Neutrality? Explain in your own words the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the belief that all data which is accessed on the internet should be treated the same from the point of view of internet service providers. This means that certain websites cannot be favored or blocked depending on how the ISP feels about the website. An example of this would be Comcast blocking internet users from accessing Verizon’s website, or an ISP allowing faster streaming on Hulu compared to Netflix because the ISP had made a deal with Hulu. Net neutrality first began in 2015, when the FCC passed a law encouraging net neutrality and making it illegal for companies to favor or block data from certain sites. The law was met with much controversy and ISP’s were involved in several lawsuits at the time trying to fight net neutrality. This changed in 2017 when congress essentially eliminated all of the net neutrality protections which were put in place two years ago. Now, the topic is as heated as ever, with many lawmakers trying desperately to get net neutrality protections back in place, while others are fighting to keep net neutrality out of the law.
People who are in favor of net neutrality argue that it keeps certain organizations without as much capitol as big companies from being discriminated against. The whole concept of the internet is that it should be open and free, but if big companies can pay to have their sites in a “fast lane”, then you are essentially losing the openness of the internet, and will become restricted to only viewing certain sites.Aside from money, ISPs could discriminate against organizations which they do not agree with, either for political ethical or religious reasons. This could severely inhibit grassroots movements, which often rely on the open internet to organize events and gain supporters.
Opponents of net neutrality argue that it does not necessarily make the internet neutral. One big argument against net neutrality is that companies that use a significant amount of bandwidth, like Netflix, should have to pay more for that bandwidth because they are limiting the amount that ISPs can use on other smaller sites, seeing as there is a finite amount if bandwidth an ISP can use. Other arguments against net neutrality claim that there are not any real examples of ISPs doing anything unethical during the time before 2015 when there were essentially no net neutrality laws. Due to this precedent, opponents of net neutrality claim that it would be a waste of tax dollars to impose a litany of additional regulations on ISPs to prevent them from doing something which they seem to not be doing anyway.
I believe net neutrality is good thing which should be brought back into law. For one, the articles which claim that ISPs haven’t done anything bad in the absence of net neutrality are mistaken, as it was pointed out that AT&T had already shown a history of favoring its tv service above other services by not having tv streaming charged to a user’s monthly data limit. Additionally, I think that even if there are not egregious examples of companies acting unethically in the absence of net neutrality, that doesn’t mean that there is no possibility of that changing in the future, and in order to ensure this doesn’t happen net neutrality laws need to be put in place. I believe the biggest concern with net neutrality is the blocking or favoring of certain sites. If net neutrality regulations are put back into law, they should be focused on ensuring that companies cannot pay to have their sites featured more prevalently than others, and also that ISPs cannot block sites due to conflicting beliefs.