Reading 09: Net Neutrality
Net neutrality is the idea that governments should mandate Internet service providers (or ISPs) to treat all data and traffic on the Internet the same, meaning that ISPs are not allowed to discriminate or charge differently based on the user, content, or website. Basically, this is the idea that ISPs, such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, are not allowed to speed up or slow down certain content, but rather that all content must be treated equally. The arguments for net neutrality are the following: First, that it promotes innovation since all Internet traffic is the same, new websites and startups get just as quick service from the ISPs as an established company would. Second, that if ISPs were allowed to discriminate based on content, user, and source of the traffic, then they could increase costs to high-bandwidth clients and charge customers premium subscriptions in order to access content at a faster (or even normal) speed. Third, if ISPs can control the flow of Internet traffic, then they could abuse that power and attempt to influence public opinion, perhaps influencing elections or legislation. The arguments against net neutrality are the following: ISPs should be allowed to charge more for high-bandwidth clients because their needs are greater and they take up a larger portion of the bandwidth supply. Basically, if you were to compare the Internet to a toll road, an 18-wheeler would be charged more than a compact car because it causes more wear and tear on the road.
After examining these two sides, I would say that I am definitely in favor of net neutrality. I believe that there should not be ‘fast lanes’ and ‘slow lanes’ in regard to the Internet, as the potential consequences of such an idea are too great. The lack of net neutrality would absolutely hurt innovation, as smaller web-based companies would struggle even more to compete with existing giants. Additionally, because the goal of every company, including ISPs, is to maximize shareholder value by generating as much profit as possible, it is completely conceivable that ISPs would charge customers costly premiums in order to enjoy their favorite content in ‘non-slow’ lanes. We see this today in the video game industry, as micro transactions have had an incredible negative impact by leading companies to provide less quality content up front and put the so-called ‘premium’ content behind a pay wall.
In terms of implementing net neutrality legislation, I agree that the Internet should be seen as a public utility that is open and equal to all. I would thus enforce all Internet traffic should be treated equally and thus delivered at the same rate, despite the user, source, or content, so long as the content is legal. I think the legislation put forth in 2015 by the FCC correctly dealt with this topic. Fines based on the degree of the transgression would be the best way to deter ISPs from not following the legislation.
As I’m sure you can tell by now, I do believe that fair access to the Internet is a basic right. It’s 2018, and while Internet is certainly not at the same level as other utilities like electricity and plumbing, it plays an integral part in nearly everyone’s daily lives, and it thus should be treated and regulated like other utilities. At the end of the day, I do not trust massive corporations to do what is best for consumers, but rather to do what is best for their bottom line. Therefore, I think government absolutely has a role in securing a level playing field, as it is the only entity that can ensure that everyone’s data (assuming legal) is treated equally.
