Currently, net neutrality continues to be a highly contested issue as legislators debate whether to regulate the internet in an effort to equalize the web. The principle idea of net neutrality is that all data on the net should be treated equally by governments and internet service providers (ISPs) in an effort to prevent discriminatory treatment based on site, content, user, etc. Such treatment includes blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of Internet traffic. For instance, laws enforcing an open internet would stop the meddling of internet service providers who tamper with the internet traffic of certain applications or protocols. Both those in favor of net neutrality and those who vehemently protest it, present strong arguments for their case which will be discussed in following.
Many internet users support the concept of net neutrality. They argue that an open web protects the free speech of internet users and posters. Without net neutrality, ISPs have the ability to manipulate web traffic to benefit their own interests and promote the political, financial, and social principles they agree with, while suppressing the rest. A certain ISP could deliberately slow the content of its competitors or impose fees for better service, essentially “carv[ing] the internet into slow and fast lanes” (Save the Internet). Similarly, providers or other authoritative bodies could block sites which promote political opinions, etc. they disagree with. In addition to preventing this unethical manipulation of the web, net neutrality also comes to the benefit of small businesses. Many fledgling businesses rely on the web to promote their products and grow a following. Net neutrality ensures that the web is a level playing field for business. It’s also argued that net neutrality would help the minority voice where mainstream fails them. However if the web remains unregulated, ISPs could “block unpopular speech and prevent dissident voices from speaking freely online” (Save the Internet).
Those opposed to net neutrality claim these regulatory laws are simply another way the government to grab control. Equalizing the web would stifle innovation and competition by preventing new ideas or business models from developing into successful products. For example, net neutrality hinders business models in need of more preferential bandwidth. Individuals that oppose net neutrality are quick to point out that consumers have the power to make businesses and services successful or unsuccessful. So if an ISP were to block or restrict the bandwidth to a popular site, many consumers of that site would take their business to a different ISP, forcing the original provider to change their policies. But considering the serious lack of competition among ISPs, the set of problems net neutrality laws claim to fix is irrelevant. If meaningful reform is the goal, many people suggest throwing support behind legislature to break up the broadband monopoly rather than net neutrality laws. Additionally, it is noted that lawyers and legislators have absolutely no engineering experience relevant to regulating the internet. They have no notion of the best policies needed to curb the flood of spam, viruses, and malware trying to make its way across the internet each day.
I am primarily against the regulation of the internet for the interest of net neutrality. Firstly, if a specific site receives less bandwidth from its ISP and that site becomes immensely popular, the consumer demand for that site will force the ISP’s hand. Furthermore, if a site or service requires more bandwidth to be successful, they should have the opportunity to purchase more bandwidth. Without this option, the growth of online companies is stifled and prices for companies requiring less bandwidth are unnecessarily higher. Some might express concerns about providing level playing fields for businesses and services. In response, I cite again the power of the consumer. ISPs offering better basic bandwidth for new businesses are more likely to get positive responses and thus, more business from consumers and eventually, a natural equilibrium is established. I do however believe there should be legislature prevent unfair discrimination by ISPs, that is discrimination based purely on the content’s political, social, religious leanings. Blocking and throttling in my opinion are a form of censure which should be prevented.
I believe that everyone has the basic right to access information and as the best tool to accomplish this task, the internet should be considered a public service, that is an essential commodity. At one time electricity was considered as new as the internet but once we became so completely reliant on its power, electricity became a public service. Although, the internet is a fairly recent technological advancement, our reliance on the internet is becoming more evident. It is no longer a novelty but an essential tool used for communication, banking, and purchases. If the internet is not considered a public service now, it very soon will be.
Ethics in Computer Science 