Pros And Cons Of Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is the idea that all internet service providers, companies that connect you the consumer to the internet, must treat all internet data equally regardless of its source, destination, or type (“Net”). If used correctly, this principle ensures that all information on the internet is equally accessible to all consumers (Price). The Open Internet Order, an act passed in 2015 by the Federal Communications Commission, shortened to FCC, protected Net Neutrality under the law and reflected the principles of the Internet Policy Statement from 2005 (Rouse). It centers around three main points: internet service providers, commonly known as ISPs, cannot “unreasonably discriminate against users for lawful traffic”, cannot block websites that

Since ISPs control a consumer’s access to the internet, they could block or slow down whatever websites they wanted to without regulation (“Editorial”). Instead of treating all content equally, ISPs could easily force companies to pay a fee or risk becoming invisible to customers (Coren). Websites may also be suppressed if ISPs wish to prefer their own content or service and block competitors out completely; however, large companies could cause damage too (“What”). For example, if Google made a deal with an ISP, the ISP could block or slow down competitors like Yahoo! and Bing (“What”). According to Jayce Broda, host and producer of the YouTube channel Android Authority, ISPs may also be able to “manipulate what people begin to believe” (“Tech”). An ISP could throttle a website based on political views or religious beliefs, something that is impossible under the Open Internet Order (Price). If Net Neutrality is left unprotected, consumers would have to trust in ISPs to abstain from making more money through dishonest practices and one-sided deals, which is essentially trusting a rabid dog not to bite your

A common argument ISPs have is that less regulation and the ability to charge websites and consumers more would give them money to reinvest in better infrastructure (“What”). ISPs also argue that any consumers against their policies could easily switch providers if they wanted to, but the issue is not as simple as that (“What”). It is not the job of individual companies to improve the infrastructure of the internet, just like how it isn’t the job of individual cars to build better roads (“What”). Likewise, many Americans only have access to decent internet from one provider where they live, and therefore have no other options than one provider (“What”). The other opposition is the FCC, specifically Trump-appointed chairman Ajit Pai. In an interview with PBS Newshour, he explained why he believes repealing the Open Internet Order is beneficial. His first argument is that “by imposing those heavy-handed economic regulations on Internet service providers big and small, we could end up disincentivizing companies from wanting to build out Internet access” (“FCC”). He also claims that “light-touch” pre-Net Neutrality regulation actually produced a free, open internet (“FCC”). Neither of these statements are true. According to FreePress, a public interest group dedicated to Net Neutrality, “publicly traded ISPs spent approximately 5 percent more on capital