Net Neutrality Research Paper
“Net neutrality”. Two words that seem to pop up every few years, met with the internet’s fury, just to disappear from the public’s collective conscience. Although the words are familiar, the definition is sometimes not. Net neutrality is defined by Dictionary.com as, “the concept that...internet service providers should provide nondiscriminatory access to Internet content…”. Net neutrality is often at risk, thanks to new law proposals that, similarly to the words, seem to keep popping up every few years. Most people would ask, why would such a thing keep coming under fire? In the article entitled, This is why the government should never control the internet, former commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Robert M.
McDowell offers an interesting point of view on net neutrality. In the article, McDowell states that the government, or the FCC, should not be able to regulate the internet. McDowell opposes net neutrality, and argues that by allowing the government to make tighter rules may eventually lead to oppression or strict control of free and political speech on the internet. Another argument McDowell makes is that net neutrality is akin to “State manipulation of the net” and that net neutrality is a slippery slope. He claims, if it isn’t broke then don’t fix it as the answer to the question of allowing tighter net neutrality rules. McDowell’s arguments are hardly unbiased, given his former work as a commissioner to the Federal Communications Commision, and current work for the Hudson Institute’s Center for Economics of the Internet. His argument, “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” in reference to the tighter net neutrality laws do not make sense, since the government is already regulating the internet and net neutrality is currently being imposed. McDowell argues that internet providers would not hinder fair internet in the absence of net neutrality because it would be bad for business, though there is no proof that any internet providers would do so. To believe this is putting blind faith in the providers and hope they would do what is best for the public out of their own accord. History shows this to be false. Net neutrality is a necessity for a fair and equal internet, without the laws in place, there is no guarantee internet providers would do what is right. Companies and internet providers need laws and regulations for the good of the public.
McDowell offers an interesting point of view on net neutrality. In the article, McDowell states that the government, or the FCC, should not be able to regulate the internet. McDowell opposes net neutrality, and argues that by allowing the government to make tighter rules may eventually lead to oppression or strict control of free and political speech on the internet. Another argument McDowell makes is that net neutrality is akin to “State manipulation of the net” and that net neutrality is a slippery slope. He claims, if it isn’t broke then don’t fix it as the answer to the question of allowing tighter net neutrality rules. McDowell’s arguments are hardly unbiased, given his former work as a commissioner to the Federal Communications Commision, and current work for the Hudson Institute’s Center for Economics of the Internet. His argument, “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” in reference to the tighter net neutrality laws do not make sense, since the government is already regulating the internet and net neutrality is currently being imposed. McDowell argues that internet providers would not hinder fair internet in the absence of net neutrality because it would be bad for business, though there is no proof that any internet providers would do so. To believe this is putting blind faith in the providers and hope they would do what is best for the public out of their own accord. History shows this to be false. Net neutrality is a necessity for a fair and equal internet, without the laws in place, there is no guarantee internet providers would do what is right. Companies and internet providers need laws and regulations for the good of the public.