Net Neutrality is the idea that all data from all sources and of all types should be treated equally by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Pretty simple problem surrounded by complicated debate. People who are in favor of Net Neutrality believe that giving the power to discriminate between data on the internet gives ISPs power that they will in turn abuse to maximize profit, and they believe that it will end the internet as we know it: free open, and accessible to all. The people who are against Net Neutrality see it as a regulation on the ISPs that is both unnecessary and a burden on them. They believe that charging more to those who use more bandwidth will allow them to invest more in infrastructure as well as improve the speed for those whose networks are being clogged with all different kinds of data.
As for me, I side complete with Net Neutrality. The arguments against NN completely ignore reality for promises that ISPs have never shown any signs of fulfilling. Waste and inefficiencies due to regulation are real concerns, but the internet is an integral part of the day to day life of nearly every American. Turning it into a pay to play playground for those who can afford creates in an environment similar to the one we have in congress where powerfully lobbyists and super PACs have a disproportional amount of influence. In addition, giving the keys to the owners closer of the internet to ISPs gives them power over business that rely on the internet. With the amount of control that the corporations want, they would be able to sell our information, insert ads into all of our internet content, shut down competition to their services, etc. All of which they will do because they will maximize profits, which is the end goal of any corporation. They have no desire to play fair. The most common argument against this power grab is that you can always change ISPs to someone who doesn’t do those tings. This is what completely ignores reality. In most areas there are barely two different ISPs available. This is not enough competition to ensure that ISPs will not abuse their customer. Because of the high infrastructure costs associated with the internet, and the need to coordinate with local municipalities, it is hard to break the monopoly in many areas of the country. This has led to Comcast being known as the most hated company in the country for many years running. Why would giving Comcast more power help stop the abuse they’re already doing?
As much as I hate government regulation and administration, I would say the best current plan is to have the government provided the backbone structure and allow the ISPs do the last mile delivery. Then force each ISP to rent out their own infrastructure to whomever the customer picks to be their ISP (idea via Sam Altman). Its not a great solution, but it’s much better than a world where the internet becomes for the elites only and ISPs disproportionally profit from owning digital pipes.
Weastworld 