Reading 09: Net Neutrality

“Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon should treat all content flowing through their cables and cell towers equally” (Finley). This includes not creating “fast lanes” offered to companies who pay a premium. Also, under net neutrality, “Internet service providers could not discriminate against any lawful content by blocking websites or apps” (Collins) and “service providers could not slow the transmission of data because of the nature of the content, as long as it was legal” (Collins). The main argument for net neutrality is that taking it away discourages innovation. It will allow ISPs to give preferential treatment to content providers willing to spend money (and more importantly, HAVE that money). This puts startups and smaller companies at a huge disadvantage because without web traffic because they will not have as much money and will have a much harder time establishing themselves. The thought is that these smaller companies would help fuel innovation as new ideas can stem from anywhere, but putting these companies at a disadvantage makes it harder for these new ideas to be noticed. The argument against net neutrality is a also related to discouraging innovation. Opponents to net neutrality argue that ISPs haven’t really done the potential acts that those in favor of net neutrality are afraid of and that handcuffing how they run their businesses limits their innovation capabilities. These innovation capabilities are important as well since ISPs are our gateway to the Internet. As the FCC says, “[the rules] restrained broadband providers like Verizon and Comcast from experimenting with new business models and investing in new technology” (Collins). I think generally I’m more in favor of net neutrality. It’s an interesting issue because both sides kind of need each other. ISPs need content creators to make their services meaningful, and content creators need ISPs to actually spread their content. The reason I think I’m more in favor of net neutrality is that there are significantly more content creators than ISPs. It’s not like there are a TON of ISPs, so even if they didn’t have these restrictions and did do the practices net neutrality supporters are afraid of, people would still go to them. Since people need to go to one of the few providers, I just don’t feel that they have as much incentive to innovate as they may claim. As such, I feel that because there is a large variety of content creators, innovation and creativity is more natural in this realm. Because of this, giving ISPs the means to throttle or create fast lanes hurts innovation more than not letting them do that. I suppose one could say that net neutrality is over regulatory and over burdening for ISPs, but if you think about it, the internet is one of the most powerful resources in this day and age. If you don’t put restrictions on ISPs to prevent them from doing whatever they want for money’s sake, you’re basically inviting them to have a monopoly over the greatest resource of the modern age. In the CloudFlare article, the author writes that “[he has] deep concerns that proponents of a free and open Internet may look back on today not as a great victory, but as the first step in what may turn out to be a devastating loss. The Internet has largely been governed from the bottom up by technologists seeking rough consensus and running code. Today’s action by the FCC may mark the beginning of a new era where the Internet is regulated by lawyers from the top down” (Price). While I understand Price’s sentiment, I don’t think I’m personally as worried about this as he is. The Internet has been around for a decent amount of time, but today is a different age from the one when the Internet first began. It is ubiquitous whereas in the past, its presence wasn’t so all encompassing. We’re in an age where if you don’t have access to the Internet, you will be left behind, so I do think it as a public service and basic right. Additionally, since the Internet has grown so large lately, I have less trust in an unbridled free market than I may have had before and think the government does have a role to play in ensuring a level playing field.