Internet service providers (ISPs) such as AT&T and Comcast are able to actively censor certain contents by slowing down their access. Many people, with support from content providers such as Google and Apple, are seeking to prevent the ISPs from exercising their selective power. The principle is called Net Neutrality. According to the article What is net neutrality and what does it mean for me?, net neutrality states that “Internet service providers (ISPs) should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources or blocking others. It prohibits ISPs from charging content providers for speedier delivery of their content on “fast lanes” and deliberately slowing the content from content providers that may compete with ISPs.” With the support from the government, supporters of net neutrality hope to create an Internet environment where all resources are equally accessible.
Many people support net neutrality because of their belief that it will help protect the openness of the Internet. They do not want to grant the ISPs the power of censorship over contents. They believe that such power can be easily abused. For obvious reasons, content providers support net neutrality. They argue that the consumers have the right to access content since they have already paid for connectivity. And the responsibility of providing a quality Internet access lies with the ISPs. Additionally, without net neutrality, content provider will have to answer to the ISPs as well as their costumers. This can lead to the problem of unfair competition. As stated in the article An Introduction to Net Neutrality: What It Is, What It Means for You, and What You Can Do About It, “while big services like Netflix could, in theory, afford to pay Comcast for using extra bandwidth, the small, lesser-known services—that could be big one day but aren’t yet—can’t.”
People against net neutrality are mainly concern with the restriction it puts on innovation and investment. They argue that ISPs have the right to distribute their network differently for different contents. In particular, video-streaming websites such as Netflix uses up a lot of Internet resource. Anti-net neutrality activists believe that the cost for upgrades needed to support the heavy traffic should be shared by content providers or their access should be restricted. Also, net neutrality is not welcomed among free market proponents. They believe that content providers should be able to compete freely for the limited Internet resource. The innovations resulting from the free competition could lead to more efficient use of the Internet.
I am against net neutrality because I don’t think it could lead to the kind of Internet environment its proponents dream of. I agree with the statement that “the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right”. However, “fair access” does not mean “equal access”. If Netflix is taking up more resources than other content provider, it is fair for the ISPs to charge them more or slow down its delivery. In this case, forcing the idea of equal access would be considered unfair. Instead of asking ISPs to hand over the complete control over Internet accessing speed, the government should pass regulations and guidelines on criteria for slowing down content delivery. This way, ISPs are unable to exercise unfair discrimination for their own gain. Content providers will have to work hard on innovations in order to avoid being slowed down. Therefore, we could have a much better Internet environment for the consumers.
xuanyilicse40175 