The Internet is humanity’s most important creation. What makes it so valuable is the amount of equality that it provides. Nobody owns the Internet, because it belongs to everyone. It allows even the most ordinary people to be able to spread news, ideas, and culture across the world. Net neutrality is important to our society because it is what protects the freedoms and spaces for equal opportunity that the Internet provides. In the United States, every person is allowed to use the Internet in any legal manner as they please. Once someone purchases an Internet package, they are free to access whatever website they want to. This is how the Internet should be treated. It needs to remain a space where people and businesses alike have equal access to view content, and have equal opportunities to share it. The First Amendment prevents the US government from blocking or shutting down any non-illegal websites on the web. Internet service providers are also prevented from blocking websites at their own will, however that may soon change. If it does, the Internet will no longer be a place for equal and open opportunity for all.

An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that provides its users with access to the Internet. Notable examples include Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Spectrum. It is the ISPs’ job to provide its users with the ability to access the Internet. While they are able to provide a gateway to the Internet, they cannot control the Internet or what their users do on it. This is because of a concept called net neutrality, which protects certain freedoms that the Internet currently provides us with. Net neutrality is defined as the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. Under no circumstance can an ISP legally shut down or block a website. The United States government has placed laws and regulations to uphold this. 

Net neutrality has only recently been a large topic of debate within the United States government. However, it has been a topic of discussion for over a decade. On August 5, 2005, a Republican controlled FCC unanimously adopted four principles in regards to the Internet. The goal of these principles was “to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature” of the Internet. The four principles said that consumers were entitled to:

Access the lawful content of their choice

Run applications and services of their choice

Connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network

Have competition among network, application and content providers

In a vote in 2005, the FCC did not adopt net neutrality rules, but did claim it would incorporate the principles in its policymaking. In 2007, Comcast was accused of blocking customers from using BitTorrent’s video downloading software. After a 3-2 vote, the FCC found that Comcast attempted to cripple websites that competed with its on-demand video service. Comcast was ordered to stop the blocking, and eventually decided to go up against the FCC in federal court. The court ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to enforce its principles.

Once Barack Obama was elected into office, the net neutrality debate began to gain more traction. The FCC, which was controlled by Democrats during the Obama presidency, began to focus more and more on establishing regulations regarding net neutrality. The FCC eventually voted to adopt its first regulations on net neutrality. With that vote, the Open Internet Order was passed. The Open Internet Order prohibits ISPs from blocking their customers from accessing any legal websites or services. It also prohibits business arrangements that involve companies paying ISPs money to have their content prioritized. In 2015, the FCC had a vote which resulted in the reclassification of broadband in as a common carrier, rather than an information provider, under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The reclassification meant that the Internet would be treated as a utility, similar to telephone companies. 

YouTuber TotalBiscuit made a comparison, describing it as being like water or electricity. He stated that “You can only charge for the resource use. You can’t charge extra for what it is used for. You can’t charge a premium if you decide to pour water into a glass and drink it versus using it to water your plants”. This is the current state that the Internet is in right now. Users pay ISPs for Internet access, and ISPs can only dictate the speed of their provided service, as well as how much data can be used. ISPs cannot, however, slow down or block certain websites or services. They cannot force users to pay extra to visit certain websites. Corporations cannot pay ISPs to prioritize their websites and services, and ISPs cannot throttle the websites of organizations that compete or disagree with them. It is important that we uphold net neutrality, so that the Internet remains in its current state, one where everyone is treated equal. Without the laws and regulations that the Obama administration passed, the Internet in the United States can devolve into a state where users can only access and share content that ISPs allow them to. Unfortunately, this may soon become a reality.

The current presidential administration, the Trump Administration, is openly against net neutrality. The Trump Administration sees the Open Internet Act and Title II as a product of excessive government interference and regulation. President Trump believes that the regulations passed by the Obama Administration are an “overreach”. In regards to opposing net neutrality, Trump has stated that he will “continue to fight Washington red tape that stifles American innovation, job creation and economic growth.”. Trump has appointed FCC member Ajit Pai as chairman of the agency. Ajit Pai plans to oppose regulations made during the Obama presidency that focus on upholding net neutrality. Ajit Pai has proposed “Restoring Internet Freedom”, which considers rolling back pro-net neutrality regulations that were created under the Obama Administration. The now Republican-controlled FCC has not yet had a vote to decide on whether it will roll back the Obama Administration’s regulations. 

Ajit Pai, before becoming a member of the FCC, was a lawyer for Verizon Wireless. It is not surprising that a former associate of one of the largest Internet service providers in the United States would be against net neutrality. Alongside the Trump Administration, ISPs are pushing for an end to net neutrality. If the current regulations on the Internet were to be rolled back, ISPs would have an excessive amount of control over the accessibility of content on the Internet. These providers could block any websites or services they want, for any reason whatsoever. ISPs are against net neutrality because it prevents them from having control over things that they should not have control over. ISPs should not be granted that extra power, because the Internet belongs to everyone, and it is not up to the ISPs to control what people do or see on it. The job of an ISP is simply to give its users access to the Internet as a whole, and not to give a restricted, anti-consumer version of it. If ISPs were not restricted by the regulations that are currently in place, the Internet would look much, much different.

The implications of a world without Internet regulation are concerning, to say the least. The ISPs’ desire to control what its users see and do not see simply stems from the fact that it grants them the opportunity to benefit financially. Without net neutrality, ISPs could slow the speed of certain websites or services and make customers pay premium prices to access that specific content. An ISP could throttle a certain website’s traffic, and force the website’s owner to pay a fee to have it unthrottled. An ISP could also block news or information based websites that oppose its views. None of these changes would be consumer friendly at all. The only beneficiaries of these changes would be ISPs and corporations large enough afford to have their content prioritized. If net neutrality were to no longer be upheld, the changes made to the Internet would hurt a vast majority of its users.

Without net neutrality, ISPs would be able to increase or decrease speeds of any website or service they want. One of the main talking points related to the dismantling of net neutrality is the concept of “paid prioritization” or “fast lanes”. This would mean that ISPs could set premium rates that people or companies could pay in order to increase the speed of their website or service. While this sounds like a good idea in theory, it would still be harmful. While large corporations would be able to afford a “fast lane”, smaller businesses and startup companies would fall behind. Morgan Willis, writer for The State Press stated that “Internet speed is incredibly important to a website's success,” and that “Giving cable companies the ability to set different rates for internet speed would let them control which websites live and die”. Only ISPs and large corporations would benefit from a change like this. The online presence of small businesses and startups would be hurt badly, as users would shy away from slower websites when they could find faster ones available. The Internet should be a place of equal opportunity. The concept of “fast lanes” removes that entirely. If the online presence of small businesses and startup companies was to die out, we would only be left with content provided by large corporations. “Paid prioritization” would take away a lot of alternatives that users have to the services provided by big companies. This means less competition for these large companies, which results in these companies being able to get away with more anti-consumer practices. These “fast lanes”, in the end, would get rid of the field of opportunity that small businesses and startup companies need to become successful, which would result in less options and alternatives for the average user. 

With the existence of a “fast lane” concept, there also exists the idea of a “slow lane”. ISPs could throttle any website that they have a particular issue with. Recently, Verizon Wireless was caught throttling traffic speeds for Netflix and YouTube, most likely because of the amount of bandwidth that streaming video takes up. Verizon Wireless claimed this was due to network testing. However, users reportedly received better connection speeds when using a VPN. When using a VPN, the users were still connected to Verizon itself, just not directly. ISPs could slow the traffic of the websites of their own competition. This would be damaging to users, as it would limit their choices for alternative Internet services. Much like the “fast lane” concept, it would also eliminate the chance for equal opportunities that the Internet should provide.

The implications of “slow lanes” become even more frightening when you consider that ISPs could potentially slow down websites that express different view or hold different principles than they do. An ISP could slow websites that contain negative opinions or facts about it to uphold its own image. An ISP could also try preventing users from seeing content that contradicts the political views that it upholds. Without regulations, free speech on the Internet could potentially be threatened.

Internet service providers would also potentially have the ability to pick and choose certain websites to slow down and charge users with premium prices to be able to access them. This is simply just anti-consumer. Users already pay ISPs to be able to access the Internet. To block a website and then charge users a second fee to access it is absurd. Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has written that this could potentially make “news and information a luxury good”. In this scenario, the average user loses. Only the ISPs would benefit from this. Putting paywalls around content that users already paid for once is completely anti-consumer. There is no full guarantee that this could happen if internet regulations were to be abolished, however, it is still a possibility.

Regardless, there are those who believe that net neutrality and regulations are harmful to the Internet. Points have been made that detail how these regulations are holding the Internet back, and how abolishing them will help the Internet grow into something better. Some believe that the current web traffic regulations are unfair to ISPs. It has been noted that as network traffic continues to increase, especially with the rise of video streaming services, ISPs worry their infrastructure will not be able to keep up. However, ISPs currently have the ability to control how much bandwidth users are able to use on their Internet service as a whole. They can still manage general network traffic as to not overload their infrastructure, they just cannot manage the traffic of specific websites and services. Some argue that net neutrality slows the progress of Internet speeds and traffic management. However, if Internet service were to be able to manage web traffic of individual websites, we would just be introduced to the “fast lane” concept, which is harmful to both small businesses and users alike. Having slower progress on Internet traffic and infrastructure is a worthy tradeoff when the alternative involves hurting a majority of Internet users and benefitting only a select few. 

Some also argue that the United States government was overstepping its boundaries when issuing Title II and reclassifying broadband Internet as a utility. Much like water or electricity, the Internet is a necessity in modern society. People need the Internet for their jobs, education, information, news, communication, and so much more. The society we live in is becoming more and more built around the Internet. The Internet is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Our society will grow more reliant on it as time goes on. Classifying the Internet as a utility only insures that it belongs to our society, and not just those who provide access to it. 

The Internet is a place of freedom. It is a place of equal opportunity for all of those who use it. It is a necessity in today’s society. It is a platform for information, news, ideas, art, culture, innovation, and communication. It allows for everyone’s voice to be heard, regardless of their beliefs. The Internet belongs to everyone, not just the companies that provide access to it. It is the ISPs’ job to provide users with access to the Internet, not control what users see and share. Net neutrality is what allows the Internet to remain a place of freedom and equal opportunity for all. Without net neutrality, we could see more fees that users would have to pay, less online presence of startup companies and small businesses, less competition for large companies, less options for users, and possibly even censorship or obstructions of freedom of speech. Net neutrality does not hurt ISPs; it only prevents them from having control over content that they should not have control over. But, without net neutrality, everyone who is not an ISP is hurt. Only Internet service providers and large corporations would benefit from the abolition of Internet regulation. Not a single normal person would benefit from the loss of net neutrality, as they would only be hurt by it. It is important that we uphold net neutrality in the United States because it is what keeps the Internet free and equal for every person who uses it.
