In the rapidly evolving age of technology, there is a debate that is growing equally as fast. Net neutrality is the idea that internet users should have access to all content regardless of ISP or Internet service provider. This means that your ISP should not have the ability to limit internet accessibility by censoring sites that have conflicting interests, charging extra for frequently used sites (such as Google and Facebook), or intentionally throttling performance. While the debate of net neutrality is much larger than these few examples, it boils down to the issue of possible censorship as well as control over the flow of information. However, the debate is not one sided, there are also several benefits of net neutrality. I argue that the cons far out weight the pros.

“Some venture capitalists have even argued that abandoning NN would result in would-be entrepreneurs becoming more hesitant to start a business, which might hurt the competitiveness of American online firms in the long run.” [1] This quote could not be any more true. In its current state, the ability to create and manage a startup company’s web presence is the solid foundation many of these entrepreneurs need before they can begin to turn a profit. If service providers began to charge for premium service, there is a good chance that small business would shy away from an online presence in order to focus more on physical advertising. Think about the amount of business these small businesses get due to Facebook adds that happen to cross the time line of someone who’s never heard of them but needs their product. This can already be seen with Facebook business pages. Starting out, Facebook use to let you start a page and run it as a business however you’d like. They would charge a small $5 fee for boosting your adds to people in the surrounding area. Facebook recently changed their policy to where you must pay fees in order to even hold a business page. They even went as far as blocking your page from being viewed if you fail to make these payments. This has caused a large number of businesses to remove their Facebook presence as well as lose a large customer base due to some of their customers only seeing them due to Facebook. Conflict such as this is causing more and more business to find other methods to reach their customers online whether it be hosting their own website or working through other forms of social media.

While the abandonment of net neutrality seems like a speed bump for new small business, it may impact the economy in a good way. “For content providers, the next generation broadband services will enable instant delivery of high-definition movies, consumer interactivity, a richer online shopping experience, and so forth, and in the process, open many new channels of revenue generation. In fact, many consumers who currently do not feel the need for broadband services for their typical Internet activities…” [1] By charging a premium for select internet services, internet service providers will have more revenue to put towards the creation of larger bandwidth. More bandwidth means faster speeds. While the option to pay for faster speeds is available; by making it a premium service; individuals paying would have the current bandwidth prioritized for them at the cost of those who refuse to pay for the content. This model of non-net neutrality is one that could work since it is already somewhat in place. The providers are charging for a premium on speeds rather than accessibility to content. It’s when the providers and governments get control of the content that creates an issue.

As one of the worlds super powers, China is a people’s republic. Rather than following the democratic beliefs of the western world, China’s government holds a strict censorship on what internet content is allowed to be viewed. If anything is deemed as a threat or “against socialist core values”, the government has the ability to block the information. The even ban certain video games from their country due to beliefs. By controlling the flow of information, you control the minds of the people. “While the Chinese government has supported the development of the Internet as a tool for business, entertainment, education, and information exchange, it has succeeded in preventing people from using the Internet to organize any kind of viable political opposition.” [2] In order to keep up with current times, China has embraced the internet, but not without having control of what the citizens can access. I am using China as an example for my argument as to what can happen if the government has the legal ability to regulate the internet. Aside from blocking information, the Chinese government has made an active role in taking down any blogs, social media accounts, or forums related to any kind of political change, as to protect their interests. If net neutrality was abandoned, our government would have the ability to block whatever they’d like, limiting the peoples access to information.

Aside from the ethical factor of abandoning net neutrality, there’s the technical factor. In order to regulate information, service providers will need to put firewalls up to block sites as well as throttle performance on others. While the firewalls themselves are relatively cheap to produce, the maintenance to keep the functional is not. With the use of proxies, users could easily navigate past firewalls to gain access. While proxies may not be common knowledge at the moment, with the introduction of limits on the internet they would become more known. “The Internet was never really a level playing field. Recently, many areas of the Internet have tilted as far as to stress the system a little, but the idea that the network is innately fair (for whatever definition of fairness you wish to choose, whether proportional, max/min, or other), is fairly bogus.” [3] Along with the intentional limits put on the internet, there will also be several “accidental favoritism” accounts. These constraints consist of end-to-end service, inter-domain routing, NATs, firewalls, and proxies. All of these can limit user’s ability to information due to system errors, data priority failures, and human error. Anyone who’s ever had internet troubles can attest to the misery of having to call your service provider to determine what the issue is. Now imagine this trouble, but having it caused by something completely out of your ability to fix.

Access to information isn’t the only thing at stake. “Internet traffic in the US is growing annually by about 50%. The increase in network traffic is the consequence of the ongoing transition of the Internet to a fundamental universal access technology. Media consumption using traditional platforms such as broadcasting and cable is declining and content is instead consumed via the Internet. Today the commercial Internet ecosystem consists of several players. Internet users (IUs) are connected to the network by their local access provider (ISP), while content and service providers (CSPs) offer a wide range of applications and content to the mass of potential consumers. All of these actors are spread around the world and interconnect with each other over the Internet’s backbone, which is under the control of an oligopoly of big network providers.” [4] More and more devices are turning over to internet use as technology progresses. Apps like Netflix, Hulu, and Sling tv are replacing cable. New devices by various brands such as Apple and Samsung are built entirely around internet use. If service providers begin to pick favorites, your favorite device could become a whole lot more expensive and limited. Imagine if Spectrum created a deal with Netflix to be their number one streaming provider. You would have to not only pay a new premium to access Netflix, but you are out of luck if you wanted to use any other app. An entirely new service provider would need to be acquired if you decided you did not want Netflix, but instead Hulu. While this is still an extreme setting, it is still a possibility as corporation’s end goal are profits. 

Although the free flow of information and access to the whole internet is important, protection against cybercrime and attacks are just as crucial. “Policymakers seek both to secure networks from cyber-threats, including cyber/espionage, attack, and crime, and to ensure open access to information.” [5] The Federal Communications Commission is currently enforcing net neutrality to forbid service providers from interfering with users online choices. However, there is belief that some technologies and websites that are truly threats should be blocked. The range from terrorist propaganda, to detailed instructions to create weapons and/or explosives. While this is a good measure that should be taken, “some ISPs have claimed a right to block competing, legitimate technologies in the name of ensuring users’ “security.” [5] This is where allowing regulations becomes a problem. Due to the greedy nature of some internet service providers, any law allowing regulation to the internet must be incredibly specific to what is being blocked. I am all for the protection of citizens by banning harmful sites, but when corporations or governments become power hungry, we have a problem. “By monitoring … traffic patterns, an ISP can determine if many individual users are requesting information from the same servers, and thus engaged in an apparent DDOS. Or, an ISP can determine if certain computers are constantly sending emails, and therefore part of a spamming botnet. Understanding which computers are involved in attacks or spamming, the ISP can then disconnect those computers from the network or can monitor all the data sent from the computers and block the apparently attacking or spamming data.” [5] This would be an ideal situation as it would prevent possible attacks on important sites or even utilities grids. While service providers currently have the ability to do this, they do not have the power. Currently, most service providers will only notify a user if their network has been detected conducting illegal activity such as torrent hosting illegally obtained data and threaten to terminate service. 

“At the heart of the net neutrality debate is an institutional design problem: finding and implementing a set of governance mechanisms and a broader governance regime that advances the benefits of the Internet as its technological, economic, and political conditions continue to evolve.” [6] Politicians and internet service providers alike must find a common ground for the consumer to produce an “open web” environment while still protecting the users. A truly open internet can be dangerous; criminals and terrorists have free reigns to information; therefore, certain protective measures should be in place. The majority of users only use roughly 10% of the total internet known as the clear net. This consists of all links that major search engines such as Google and Bing have under their search net. My argument stands mostly with access to the clear net. The dark net, or the other 90% consists of private servers hosted around the globe where there are truly 0 restrictions on what can be found. Regulating this would be near impossible and cost obscene amounts of money.  I believe a good middle ground would be the censorship of certain information’s that are truly dangerous to the public such as websites that have detailed descriptions of bomb productions or other harmful information that no one should have any reason to know about. The only issue that I see happening with this is the over extension of this power in hopes to grab more stake.

So why should you care about all this? “The general fear from advocates of net neutrality is that ISPs could fracture the web into two different internets — one faster version for the major companies who could afford to pay fast lane fees, and slower version for everyone else.” [7] You shouldn’t have to have someone decide what content you are allowed to see just because it goes against their values. “The only people that the abolition of net neutrality benefits, are the ISPs. Large corporations that stand to gain financially, and of course constrict and strangle their competition.” [8] The users are the competition.  By having a free open internet, we have full freedom to decide where to navigate, what to see, and decide what influences us. These are the fundamental ideals that the internet was founded on. Why should we have to fall in line to what the internet service providers decide what’s best for us? We don’t. The whole debate boils down to a massive cash grab that the oligopoly of service providers is pushing for. They want to sacrifice your internet freedom for the extra revenue that will go directly into their pockets. 

How can we fight for an open internet? The best way is to get your voice heard, speak to your local representatives, and tell them to vote for net neutrality. If all else fails, local ISPs are an option. “Some of the nation's biggest Internet providers want to make sure that, once the Federal Communications Commission votes to deregulate the broadband industry, states won't be able to set up their own, new regulations to replace them.” [10] Verizon and Comcast are currently lobbying for state governments “to adapt to a congressional measure repealing FCC privacy protections for consumers.” [10] This means that they don’t want states to have the freedom to create their own open ISP service that could undermine them. This is already happening as a preemptive measure. “19 towns across Colorado voted to allow the exploration of creating a local, public alternative to expensive private providers.” [9] Why should companies have a say in this matter? If they choose to censor and throttle performance, their customers will know and begin to search for a provider that offers an unchained internet. Companies like Verizon and Comcast are trying to create a monopoly and force any competition to adhere to their rules. Do not trust what these companies are telling you, vote for net neutrality.

In conclusion, the debate of net neutrality is sure to hit a boiling point in the near future. While some economists believe that the abolition of net neutrality could be beneficial in the long run, the list of cons associated with it are far more than the benefit. Internet service providers should not have the ability to decide what content the user sees. The internet was founded on freedom and full access of all information. There’s already so many rules and regulations out there for vehicles, animals, even living off the land is illegal in some states. Tell the service providers to steer the course, and tell the government to hop off our internet rights. While there may be some benefit to the abolishment of net neutrality, it is surely only a benefit to politicians and corporations. The reoccurring theme of this whole debate scales back to revenue, and how can more of it be generated. Sacrificing freedom for another pay check. The internet is a scary, beautiful, wild, free thing. So, let’s keep it like that.
