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?
If you are in favor of Net Neutrality, explain how you would implement or enforce it. How would you respond to concerns about possible over-regulation, burdening corporations, or preventing innovation?
If you are against Net Neutrality, explain why it is unnecessary or undesirable. How would you respond to concerns about providing level playing fields or preventing unfair discrimination by service provides?
In either case, discuss whether or not you consider that “the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right”.
Net Neutrality certainly is a polarizing subject among politicians and lobbyists today. Tech giants, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and even the president have weighed in on the issue. Indeed it is an important topic of discussion, and so we must ensure that we’re all on the same page before we enter any sort of intelligent dialog.
Net Neutrality is the idea that the Internet is a fundamental service whose service should be available to all equally. ISPs and other agencies should not discriminate based on the type of data transmitted or the magnitude of the transmission. ISPs and other agencies ought not throttle bandwidth or filter packets based on the media itself or the end user. Essentially Net Neutrality aims to make the Internet as equally accessible as possible. There are millions of Americans who have voiced strong opinions in favor of Net Neutrality, and there are several large corporations who have tried to explain how it is not an ideal that rational or desirable. On one hand, Net Neutrality protects against the monopoly that ISPs have on access to the Internet for end users, much like the cable company giants have in television. On the other hand, it’s tough to reconcile Netflix clogging the data pipes for college students binging on the 4th season of House of Cards. But there’s really one clear choice, and that’s why I’m here to let you know why we all ought to fight tooth and nail for Net Neutrality.
It’s pivotal that the Internet remain neutral because if we lose this issue, things could get very hairy very quickly for regular web-users like yourselves. First of all, if ISPs could discriminate based on the kinds of bytes that flow through its infrastructure, we’d very quickly see “fastlane” technologies pop up for those willing and able to shell out the cash to ensure their packets reach users faster and more reliably than regular data. To allot for that increase, very likely the regular user’s bandwidth will shrink and we’ll begin to see basic, pro, and ultimate service packages. Ultimately, it sets a dangerous precedent and puts even more power in the hands of ISPs that already have a total monopoly on the packets that reach your computer.
All this being said, it takes a significant effort to actually enforce this. For starters, however, it’s good to know that even before that was legal guidance on this issue, there really weren’t many cases of data discrimination among ISPs anyways. To ensure this in the future, the FCC could run simple technological audits of sorts and track statistics on throughput, reliability, etc. for different packets from different origins. If Netflix seems to have a serious dip compared to Twitter, that could be grounds for an investigation, and if found guilty, fines would be levied against the ISP (shame on you, ISP). Seeing as the ISP infrastructure is already in place, it would be hard to test it like the EPA tests cars before they hit the roads, but they could conduct continuous tests and track basic trends.
Now unfortunately Net Neutrality does come with a few undesirable side effects. First, it sets a precedent of top-down regulation of the Internet which could lead to more toxic effects in the future (Matthew Prince writes a nice article on this). Second, it does seem odd that we should all bear a portion of the cost because Netflix increased Internet traffic by 30% in just a few years. That could arguably seem like a burden on the rest of us caused by one technological giant. Now third, some may argue that this stifles creativity in this sector of technology, but I’d argue that this isn’t the sort of creativity we want. I don’t want a neat, creative approach to differing levels of quality of service, and so if that counts as stifling creativity, so be it.
Now as far as the Internet being a basic service, which access to should be considered a fundamental right, I’m not sure I agree. If it were a fundamental right, I don’t think people should have to pay for it. Maybe that’s where society is trending since so many pivotal parts of our lives rely on the Internet, but that’s not where we’re at right now. All I think is that access to it shouldn’t be discriminated by data. Electricity is electricity. You don’t pay for fast or slow electricity. Similarly, bytes are bytes, and that’s the way it should stay.
P.S. I couldn’t find a good way to fit this into my post, but you should really take a look at Jeffrey Dorfman’s sorry attempt to dissuade you from Net Neutrality. What’s particularly great is that his article is titled “Net Neutrality Is A Bad Idea Supported By Poor Analogies,” and he proceeds to describe Net Neutrality as “only having vanilla ice cream for sale.” Hi, pot? Meet kettle. Further, he tried to shame President Obama for speaking against choosing winners and losers in the technology sector when he himself “chose winners” in the energy industry, citing his support for renewable energy sources and penalties of nonrenewable sources. Whoa look at those apples. And oh my, these oranges! Crazy how these aren’t the same at all. Renewable versus nonrenewable resources can simply be argued down to pollution versus clean energy. Honestly, I think Jeffrey may just be a proponent for Net Neutrality and his contribution was airing up such flimsy counterpoints.
P.P.S. I’m off my rant now.
Jesse's Ethics Blog 