News Team Document
Net Neutrality is a hotly debated topic, and has been for years. It is a proposed set of rules designed to prevent Internet Service Providers from creating monopolistic system for customers. Wikipedia defines Net Neutrality as a “principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.” The people who unwisely campaign against Net Neutrality (i.e. ISP’s and their supporters) think that its implementation will hurt competition and, in the long run, hurt consumers. The more logical position, for people to side with in this debate, would be to support the Federal Communications Commission, as they just want to make sure that ISPs don’t censor the internet, and charge unfair amounts to their customers.
Marc Oestreich, of New Blaze, has little good to say about net neutrality, oddly enough. He believes that “it opens the door for (politicians) to control the world's single-largest source of information, entertainment, and ideas.” Marc goes on to say that net neutrality is fundamentally anti-consumer, anti-competition, and anti-market. Advocates for the opposition of neutrality say that if the FCC gets its way, the internet will be totally ran by the government and that consumer preferences in the marketplace will matter not. This is completely not the direction the FCC wants to go with their policy. They only wish to safeguard the internet from money mongering ISP’s, so that unwary internet consumers do not get reamed in charges. This is shown in the FCC’s Broadband Policy Statement, which states four points of open internet: To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to:
o Access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
o Run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
o Connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
o Competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Supporters of the FCC think that without government intervention ISP’s, eventually, will try to do several harmful things. The first would be censorship of the internet, in the form of not allowing consumers to view certain websites the internet provider finds “distasteful”. Wired, a popular news site and blog, provides a very good example of how an ISP could take advantage of consumers in the lack of Net Neutrality: “A broadband company could, for instance, ink a deal with Microsoft to transfer all attempts to reach Google.com to Bing.com. The only recourse a user would have, under the ruling, would be to switch to a different provider -- assuming, of course, they had an alternative to switch to.” If there was no alternative for said user then he or she would be forced into paying for a service they do not want.
To avoid such a situation Congress and the FCC should work together on creating laws that would help prevent internet censorship. The Atlantic wrote that these new laws could guarantee that any discrimination on the part of ISPs would only be for controlling costs so that they actually benefit the average internet user. If an ISP tried to discriminate information for reasons based on payoffs, political gain, anti-competitiveness, they would not be allowed to follow through with their plans.
Secondly, ISP’s could attempt to transform the internet into something very similar to Television. Sarah Kessler, a writer on Mashable.com, says that, “If the FCC doesn’t regulate net neutrality, there’s still a chance that the Internet will increasingly end up functioning like television. At the moment consumers have infinite choices of Internet content that loads the same way, but Sarah fears that if priority access becomes available, only massive companies will be able to purchase it, and they will severely limit sites available that will enjoy superior access.
Citation:
Marc Oestreich. "The Absurdity of Net Neutrality."
News Blaze. June 24, 2010. Web. September 27, 2010.
< http://newsblaze.com/story/20100624101708zzzz.nb/topstory.html >.
Todd Shields. " Net Neutrality Compromise Being Weighed by U.S. Lawmakers."
Bloomberg. Sep 23, 2010. Web. September 26, 2010.
< http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-22/congress-said-to-seek-net-neutrality...>.
Focus Editors. "Which Types of Businesses Will Be Affected by Net Neutrality (And How)."
Focus. Aug 11, 2010. Web. September 27, 2010.
< http://www.focus.com/fyi/information-technology/which-types-businesses-will-b... >.
Atlantic Editors. "How Will Striking Down Net Neutrality Affect Consumers?"
The Atlantic. Apr 7, 2010. Web. September 27, 2010.
< http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/how-will-striking-down-ne... >.
Ryan Singel. "Court Drives FCC Towards Nuclear Option to Regulate Broadband."
Wired. Apr 6, 2010. Web. September 27, 2010.
< http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/fcc-next/ >.
Mashable. Aug 27, 2010. Web. Oct 18, 2010.
< http://mashable.com/2010/08/27/net-neutrality-worst-case/ >.