Net Nuetrality and People's Attitude Towards It

We value our net neutrality, fighting for it in 2015 and winning against internet service providers (ISPs) such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, to name a few. However, the FCC (or ISPs) not backing down fought to end net neutrality starting around 2018 and won against the majority. People became discouraged, lost interest, and even though we can still fight for net neutrality in Texas, the majority seemingly doesn't care enough to fight for it. What is net neutrality? Imagine that the internet as a set of highways that enable you to get from one part to the other. Net neutrality is the belief that these 'highways' shouldn't be controlled, owned, or manipulated by any private organization without express government approval. Whatever happens to net neutrality we can be sure it will affect everyone who is connected to the internet and even those not.

The US has not always had net neutrality, it was a reactionary regulation due to exploitative tactics that a small percentage of ISPs used. An example of this could be how Comcast throttled Netflix resulting in their videos streaming slowly, with frequent interruptions, until Netflix paid Comcast a hefty sum (Medium). Once we had gained net neutrality in 2015 due to majority vote, the same company (Comcast) had to agree not to favour content from NBC over other video providers, such as Youtube, when the company acquired NBC Universal more than ten years ago (Medium IPSX). Net neutrality is meant to discourage ISPs from treating competing for online sites unequally (Medium IPSX). Without net neutrality, there's nothing to prevent this kind of thing from actually happening online. Without it, ISPs could decide to charge customers an extra fee per month to access websites like Netflix and Spotify, and that's before you pay your membership. “Without net neutrality, if you want to organize people to bring it back it would be legal for ISPs to restrict access to websites or apps that promote net neutrality” according to Emma Lindsay (Medium). It would be permissible for ISPs to do what's called 'deep packet inspection' and stop you from sending any messages that contain the phrase 'net neutrality' (Medium IPSX). In a sense barring your free speech and freedom of the press. People also point at the Equal-time rule a rule that requires equal representation on 'broadcasts,' as they all supported free speech and no censoring. Economically the wave of digital entrepreneurship, that has allowed for tech to become a 'Trillion Dollar Field' may slow to a crawl without net neutrality. The repealing may bar or higher the ceiling for startups (new companies) to compete against tech giants like Netflix or Amazon who already have the funding needed to pay for a network like this. If you can't pay the ransom, you can't compete with those who can.

So why would anyone apart from ISPs not want net neutrality? According to the comments received by the FCC that were not artificial, almost no one doesn't want it (MediaShift). However, that doesn't mean there aren't any fair points against it. Opponents of net neutrality typically want internet services to be free from government regulations as the internet evolved “spectacularly” over the decades when there weren't any net neutrality regulations. Net neutrality seemingly lowered investment in needed internet infrastructure, and data supports it ISPs capital expenditure went from $78.4 billion (highest recorded) in 2014 to $76 billion in 2016, according to USTelecom (ProCon). Some say ISPs should be allowed to put in place a fast lane for online content providers that use disproportionately large amounts of bandwidth. Similar to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 as it allowed for toll roads or 'not needed roads.' By not having net neutrality we may see infrastructure rolled out faster due to the new resources available, allowing for rural areas to get better access to the internet and even give those who live in urban areas 5G 'fast mobile data' faster. Others contemplate the idea that perhaps by not having government regulation that new ISP startups could finally start popping up more often. Currently, the FCC has a slew of taxes and licensing fees to become an ISP, not only will startups be able to pop up they might be ready to fight against the big ISPs depending on the moves they make (ProCon). With these regulations in place, we need to pay for them to be enforced; without them, we don't need to pay. However, if new companies don't pop up, we may have to pay for new internet packages.

I believe in freedom of speech. However, I also believe in innovation, so my official status on this debate has been halfway, allowing for fast lanes to exist with 'normal lanes.' I officially have proposed for 'fast lanes' only to be permitted if they grow the 'normal lane' by 4/7ths. If I had to choose between the two, I'd most likely wish to protect my freedom of speech so preserve net neutrality. Moreover, I believe the best course of action to fight for net neutrality is to educate ourselves and the people around us, as well as raise our voices against the authorities responsible for putting in place net neutrality. By not fighting for/against net neutrality, we are practically leading ourselves into a trap. Startups could either face harder issues establishing themselves. Or our freedoms could be attacked, and we may never be able to fight against it as quickly as we once did, depending on how it all plays out.