From the readings, what exactly is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is the idea that ISPs should not have the ability to provide preferential treatment for any content. This neutrality would be for all legal web sites and prevent ISP involvement in speed regulating.
Explain in your own words the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding Net Neutrality?
The arguments for Net Neutrality argue that internet service is like a utility. The lack of competition in providers and the importance of the service sets ISPs apart. As gate keepers to the internet ISPs have power in a market that does not have a lot of competition because of the major capitol investments necessary for providing access to the internet on a large scale.
The arguments against Net Neutrality are focused on the issue that increased regulation stifles growth and change in the ISP market. Opponents argue that the additional rules inhibit the free market ideas that the internet was founded upon.
So, where do I stand? I believe that ISPs must be regulated to be neutral because of their elevated level of privilege. If the gatekeepers were able to pick and choose what content is allowed and given special treatment the internet would severely suffer. Showing preference to content allows those with the money to pay have first say. I do not want to live in a world where the fastest loading web pages are not the most innovative, but the ones with the most funding.
If you are in favor of Net Neutrality, explain how you would implement or enforce it. How would you respond to concerns about possible over-regulation, burdening corporations, or preventing innovation?
Any concerns about preventing innovation would be stifled with a conversation about how unregulated ISPs would hurt the customer because they are like utilities in their importance and amount of local competition. A free market can work, but only when there is enough competition to keep prices competitive.
To enforce Net Neutrality a small governing body would perform routine checks on ISPs to make sure that their software and process do not block or slow access to any legal web sites. I do not think this solution would place too much a burden on corporations. The corporations usually involved in ISP work are large firms and already deal with enough government legislation, that a small check up would not add any significant burden.
In either case, discuss whether or not you consider that “the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right”.
I do believe the internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right. Access to the internet in my mind is an extension of the right to free speech. The internet allows for communication from any location in the world and should be protected like an extension of speech. Companies that seek to alter access to this basin of knowledge and portal of communication are trying to actively destroy the free flow form of ideas in the modern age.
Ethics Blog 