Although net neutrality has been in the news quite frequently as of late, many Americans are still unlikely to understand exactly what the topic at hand refers to. Put simply, net neutrality is simply the assurance that all legal internet traffic is treated fairly and equally by internet service providers. The implication for the average consumer is that your episode of House of Cards from Netflix arrives via streaming to your computer at the same data transfer rate as a page you request from ESPN. Without net neutrality, it would be possible for internet service providers (ISP’s) to create “fast lanes” where some content would benefit from a faster delivery rate to the end customer over other traffic. Internet service providers would of course charge a premium for fast lanes. In the worst case scenarios, a lack of net neutrality could allow providers to throttle or prevent entirely the delivery of content at their will, such as content related to their competitors. As the internet plays an increasingly larger role in our lives, there has been a great deal of debate over the concept of net neutrality, with arguments over its legality, ethics, and even the role of the Federal Communications Commission in regulating internet traffic policies. Generally, content providers and a larger contingent of consumers have come down on the supporting side of net neutrality while internet service providers have argued against strict enforcement of net neutrality and even against the entire concept.
In my opinion, net neutrality is a good thing, and the FCC should be allowed to regulate the internet as if it were a public service/utility. While I naturally have reservations over unnecessary government intervention and regulation, in this instance, I believe that regulation is necessary to ensure continued innovation and a free marketplace. The primary concern in this matter should be a combination of ensuring that the market remains free and open to innovation and that consumers have fair access to the internet access they pay for.
Although service providers have argued that regulation stifles innovation, I believe that to be false in this situation. If service providers are allowed to offer fast lanes, block content, and interfere with traffic in other ways, it could place even more of a burden on new competition. Smaller competitors would be unable to compete with the lucrative deals forged by large providers. For example, if ATT were to strike a deal with Netflix for exclusive, superior fast lanes (or, far fetched as it sounds, even sole distribution rights), smaller providers would be unable to compete as Netflix is one of the top drivers of modern internet traffic.
It may seem strange to think of internet access as a public service and basic right, but we’re fast approaching that reality. I don’t think that access to the internet in general is a basic right; however, if one does pay for access to the internet, I do believe it should be a right to have fair and equal access to everything that the internet provides. Using an admittedly simple analogy – if I were to sign up for a library card, I would expect access to the entire library. We do get into some ethical grey areas when considering free internet access however. Facebook has been the subject of scrutiny over its “Free Basics” program in India, Egypt, and other countries. The program essentially allows free access to a specific set of services and sites while restricting access to others. Net neutrality supporters have argued this initiative directly opposes a free and open internet, while Facebook has argued that restricting to a subset of select sites is the cost of providing free access and getting the world online. While I strongly supported net neutrality previously in this post, I do see both sides of the argument when it comes to free internet access. I think this situation illustrates just how nuanced and complex the net neutrality issue can be. Governments and regulators have a series of tough decisions ahead of them. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the issue of net neutrality in the news consistently in the future.
ethicsryanmoran 