The net neutrality debate is examined by first being placed in current day context, followed by an examination of both the affirmative and negative arguments. Focus is placed on defining net neutrality, and analyzing the role market competition plays in ensuring net neutrality. Possible impacts on future innovations involving the internet and its openness are also considered. Based on these examinations, possible government policies and actions that can be implemented are recommended. Introduction Net neutrality is the idea that all content on the internet should be treated equally (Schewick, 2009).
This means that ISP’s cannot discriminate against content by slowing down content they do not agree with or charging internet companies more to have certain content delivered faster (Schewick, 2009). Net neutrality has been the unspoken standard since the creation of the internet. This is because, when the internet was first created, ISP’s did not have the technology to determine which content was going through their network (Schewick, 2009). Since then, technology has improved and ISP’s now have the ability to determine which content is going through their network and effect its delivery to the end user (Schewick, 2009).
In recent years, there have been concerns about whether net neutrality will continue to be upheld by ISP’s (Schewick, 2009). This began when the internet carrier SBC stated that internet companies, such as Google, should pay a fee to use the network that allows Google to reach its customers (Farber, 2009). The internet companies countered by stating that consumers already paid to have internet services, and internet companies already paid for high speed access to the network (Farber, 2009).
As it stands, there are no polices in place that ensure net neutrality must be upheld by all ISP’s and other companies working with the internet (Weiss, 2006). Which is why concerned individuals have begun advocating for increased government regulations to ensure net neutrality. Others though, say that increased regulations would harm the internet rather than helping it. Affirmatives for Net Neutrality Certain parties, such as consumers and internet service companies, believe that there need to be clear regulations placed on ISP’s to ensure net neutrality is upheld (Schewick, 2009).
A common argument is that because ISP’s use bandwidth deployed on public property in order to provide internet service, they should not be allowed to use their ownership to discriminate against certain internet content (Weiss, 2006). For these reasons, regulations similar to net neutrality are already in place for telephone companies. When the telephone was gaining popularity, the US government passed the Communications Act of 1934, which ensured that telecommunication companies, known as common carries, had to function as neutral networks (Weiss, 2006).
Once a customer paid the network fees, common carriers could not “meddle in the content or nature” of the customer calls (Weiss, 2006). When the internet was created, ISP’s were listed as information providers and thus were not bound by the same principles as common carriers. Advocates for net neutrality say that since ISP’s also use public property to provide internet access, they should be relisted as common carriers and be bound by the Communications Act. Some people feel that without these regulations, ISP’s will discriminate against content for their own profit, hurting the innovation of the internet in the process (Schewick, 2009).
For example, they might charge internet service companies such as Google and Facebook extra for fast content delivery to customers. These extra charges create a barrier-to-entry for start-up companies (Weiss, 2006). Newer companies may not have the funds to pay the ISP fees and so they will be at a disadvantage when trying to reach customers (Weiss, 2006). This could discourage people from innovating and starting new internet-based companies (Weiss, 2006). Furthermore, net neutrality proponents argue that relying on competition between ISP’s will not be able to ensure net neutrality.
This is because Gause’s competitive exclusion principle states that it is impossible to have a truly competitive market, as monopolies always emerge (Lewis, 2015). Any company that has an advantage over its competition will become more dominant in the market and overtake its competitors (Lewis, 2015). Already this is apparent in the internet provider marketplace: In the 90’s, there were over a thousand ISP’s in the marketplace, yet by 2010, a hundred ISP’s accounted for 99% of internet service (Lewis, 2015). As the number of ISP’s narrows, consumers have fewer options in terms of which company they want as their ISP (Lewis, 2015).
Hence, many are arguing for government regulations which ensure net neutrality. While net neutrality opponents argue that the current anti-competitive laws can be used to prevent ISP’s from blocking other companies and creating a monopoly, proponents say these laws are not enough (Schewick, 2009). The current anti-competitive laws apply only if a company’s actions can successfully harm another company. However, a company could, for example, exclude a Bit Torrent application without consequence as the ISP in technically not monopolizing the Bit Torrent market (Schewick, 2009).
Anti-competitive laws do not apply if an ISP’s customers cannot use Bit Torrent, or if Bit Torrent is excluded from a part of the market (Schewick, 2009). Thus, ISP’s could block Bit Torrent applications without facing consequence (Schewick, 2009). For this reason, net neutrality proponents feel that clear government regulations are required to ensure all content has a chance to reach consumers. Negatives for Net Neutrality On the other side of the debate, opponents of net neutrality argue that net neutrality is too broad of a topic to be properly implemented (Farber, 2009).
For one, if ISP’s are not allowed to interfere with content, how can they work to stop malicious viruses and denial of service attacks (Farber, 2009)? If ISP’s are allowed to discriminate against these types of content, then who will determine which content can be discriminated against and which content cannot be discriminated against (Farber, 2009). Furthermore, opposite to what the advocates of net neutrality claim, the opponents argue that increased regulations are not needed as market competition among ISP’s will be enough to ensure net neutrality (Farber, 2009).
That is, if an ISP’s actions violate net neutrality principles, consumers can switch to an opposing ISP (Farber, 2009). This means that in order to keep customers, ISP will have to uphold net neutrality (Farber, 2009). In this way, it is consumer choices which control the ISP’s actions, not government regulations. Likewise, rather than new regulations, the government should continue with their current approach where they intervene only when anti-competitive actions are being taken by ISP’s (Farber 2007).
Every incident should be considered on a case-by-case basis by carefully examining the situation before taking action (Farber, 2007). This approach as served well in the past (Farber, 2009). For example, consider the incident of Madison River Communications blocking its competitor Verizon telecom (Weiss, 2006). The FCC was able to examine the case and told Madison River to stop its anti-competitive blocking (Weiss, 2006). Opponents of net neutrality cite this as a case that shows current regulations are enough to handle any issues that may arise (Weiss, 2006).
Moreover, there are concerns among opponents about how increased regulations will harm current innovations with the internet. Currently, ISP’s are investing in fiber optic cables, and wireless carriers are introducing 3G networks to consumers (Joch, 2009). Robert Pepper, who is vice-president of global technology policy for Cisco Systems, says “The whole innovation engine offers numerous examples of new apps being developed, new business models being tried. (Joch, 2009). Some argue that government regulations will threaten new internet developments by subjecting the internet to bureaucratic processes that slow innovation.
Not to mention, opponents question how the internet can remain free if the government is “controlling” its use (Lewis, 2015). While regulations may begin with net neutrality, they could easily expand to include the government taxing and controlling transactions, setting retail prices, and reducing incentive to invest in bandwidth deployment (Lewis, 2015). As an alternative, consumers should be allowed to choose what they want from their ISPs, and if they are not satisfied they can switch (Farber, 2009). The ISP’s should be monitored, but rather than the government, there actions should be judged by consumers (Farber, 2009).
Questionable actions should be brought to light and examined by the public. In this way, there should be a transparency among ISP’s and consumers (Farber, 2009). Conclusion Overall, net neutrality is a growing debate; one side is arguing for increased government involvement, while the other side wants decreased involvement. There is also a general disagreement among what the outcomes and effects of net neutrality will be on ISPs, the internet and consumers. For example, proponents state that market competition and anti-competitive laws are not enough to ensure net neutrality.
On the other hand, opponents of net neutrality claim that the current standards are sufficient. Not to mention, both sides argue that their methods will encourage innovations while the alternative limits innovation. Recommendations: Overall, there are many issues that need to be considered including the effect on market competition and the innovation of the internet. I recommend certain policies are put into place that highlight the general principles of net neutrality such as not discriminating against content that does not directly harm the network or threaten the security of end users.
These policies should also include limitations on government powers to ensure that the internet remains a free entity. Emphasis should be placed on creating policies that establish a standard that everyone can be expected to uphold rather than explicitly regulating and controlling the internet. These principles should be openly discussed, analysed and revised before being implemented to ensure that they allow for the best possible outcome that benefits the most parties.
Finally, the state of the ISP market should continuously be monitored. If an incident occurs where an ISP violates one of these polices, the government would than intervene and instruct the ISP to stop further discriminatory actions. Information about these interventions should be available to the public, so that member of the public can also weigh in on if they think the ISP’s action violate net neutrality. In this way, both the government and the people have the power to ensure that net neutrality is upheld.
