Net Neutrality, or open Internet, is the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not favor or block certain content sources by charging content providers for access to digital “fast lanes” or deliberately slowing down content from sources that may be competing with the ISPs in some way. All of this is meant ensure that the Internet remains a free and open platform where users are able to use their bandwidth however they want, barring illegal activity of course.
Proponents of Net Neutrality argue that Internet access should be treated as a utility, like water or electricity, where all users have the same level of access. Not enforcing Net Neutrality would also give ISPs too much power that could potentially be abused, creating situations where ISPs block traffic from competing content providers or limit traffic from popular services in order to make a profit. These abuses would in turn limit the ability of smaller websites or services to compete with larger content providers capable of paying off the ISPs for bandwidth, stifling innovation as a whole.
Opponents of Net Neutrality argue that pro-Net Neutrality legislation actually impairs innovation on the ISP level and that ISPs actually have the right to distribute their networks across different services, similar to how people can pay for different levels of cable service or, in some areas in California at least, pay a lower electric bill in exchange for reducing power consumption during peak hours. Opponents also argue that charging content providers for increased bandwidth may actually be necessary, such as Comcast’s argument that Netflix should pay for the necessary updates to the ISPs infrastructure needed to handle the increased traffic caused by the service.
It should be noted that both opponents of Net Neutrality as well as some proponents of the principle argue that the government’s relatively heavy-handed method of enforcing net neutrality may actually end up hurting the free market and American innovation in the long run. Some argue that users in a world without Net Neutrality will ultimately gravitate towards the ISPs who provide them with the cheapest access to all of their desired content while others argue that establishing a set of brittle rules which lawyers can now comb over to find loopholes and exceptions to (as opposed to a set of flexible standards) may actually result in an Internet that is even less neutral than it is today.
I personally am in favor of Net Neutrality and am in favor of this method of enforcing it: create a set of standards and a dedicated team of FCC investigators to handle complaints from users who feel that their ISPs have violated their standards. This not only limits government regulation except in cases that actually warrant investigation, but would also force ISPs to self-regulate and innovate in order to keep their customers happy with truly neutral access.
I do believe that the Internet is a public service and should be treated like any other utility. The Information Age pretty much requires that those who want to innovate and move humanity forward be connected. Even just having to entire sum of human knowledge just a few clicks away is incredibly empowering/enlightening to any average user. Having fair access offers such huge advantages to a user that it should be considered a fundamental right. However, I do believe that what constitutes fair access should be solidified before we go ahead and officially declare my right to surf to my heart’s content a right.
codersongblog 