Network Neutrality

Network Neutrality “We are all now connected by the Internet, like neurons in a giant brain.” –Stephen Hawking. This quote by Stephen Hawking is true now but some claim the internet may be in danger. A new policy the United States is trying to adopt is this set of standards called “Net Neutrality”. These standards would push internet providers to keep the internet neutral, and not allow companies to pay providers to speed up their connection and make it a priority over others. People have recently grown passionate about this topic and have begun to choose sides: those who are for, and those who are against a neutral internet. The adoption of more net neutrality rules and guidelines by the United States would lead to more government censorship, less censorship done by the private sector to protect families, and it would endanger the free market with more government regulation. More regulation on the
internet could mean more government censorship. With a more neutral internet, the private sector wouldn’t be able to protect families from things like pornography, as the law would prevent them from doing so. This would mean the only agency allowed to regulate anything would be the government. Many people are calling for the nationalization of the internet by the United States Federal Government, claiming that it is just as much of an infrastructure as highways. Nationalization of the internet would lead to less private investment meaning it would need more tax dollars from US citizens, as well as the fact that the privately funded internet is developing faster and more effectively than the government run highways (Kerpen). Another downside to net neutrality is the fact that the private sector won’t be able to offer beneficial censorship to families who want it to keep their children away from pornography, violence, illegal drug information, or possibly child predators. It is important that these internet providers will still be allowed to provide this type of censorship to the families who want it, but with laws that create a neutral internet; these services would no longer be legal. Proponents of network neutrality claim that all content on the internet is equal, which is why they advocate for such a thing, but the fact remains that not all content is equal and some content can be very dangerous (Conda). The last issue with more neutrality would be that it threatens the free market. More government control over something that is currently part of the private sector is never a good idea. One source has claimed that this set of standards is “China-like” in its approach (Conda). Another source claims that this idea of a “nondiscriminatory” bandwidth is counter-intuitive because things like streaming movies require faster speeds than normal internet browsing (Conda). This harms the free market because people will leave their current provider because they can’t maintain the speeds they have been able to give in the past. Not to mention that if one provider wants to cater to those who want a neutral net and make their connection 100% neutral, then government involvement is completely unnecessary and this allows the free market to flourish.
Supporters of net neutrality claim that it is beneficial because it would keep providers from allowing certain companies to pay them to make their connection faster, in-turn slowing down the connection of other companies’ websites (The New Republic).
There are two main problems with this. First, this is a form of private sector investment that allows the internet to stay afloat without taxpayers having to compensate for what the free market cannot. If net neutrality is adopted, one source predicts there will also be a push for nationalizing the internet, leaving American taxpayers to suffer the burden of up-keeping the internet (Kerpen). Second, it is illogical to force an internet where things with a larger amount of data must be downloaded or streamed at the same speed as things that do not have such a large amount. It only makes sense to give priority to movie streaming websites over those who publish news articles because in reality they will load in the same amount of time if the one that requires more bandwidth is allowed to load at a faster speed
(Conda). Many people are advocating for and arguing against network neutrality but before making a decision it is important to look at the facts logically. At first, net neutrality seems like a great thing that would benefit Americans and the economy, but this is simply not the case. Implicating laws for a neutral internet would only lead to government censorship, an inability of the private sector to censor anything even if a customer wants it censored, and it would restrict the free market, the very thing America was built on.