The Pros And Cons Of Net Neutrality Regulations
Due to the recent expansions in the availability of technology, the ability to access information has become increasingly more common. This ability to search for information and view content through the internet is currently protected in the United States under a set of laws that are commonly referred to as Net Neutrality regulations. Although many people are unaware of what the concept of net neutrality is, it is understood that the results of any change to current internet regulations would affect have long-lasting effects on all internet users. “Net Neutrality” is a concept that was defined and popularized by Tim Wu, a legal scholar and net neutrality advocate, as being, “the idea that any network traffic… can move from one place to any other place without discrimination” (Lohr 1). Recently, this equal access to content has come under attack by certain groups that would stand to profit from the removal of current net neutrality regulations, such as internet service providers
…show more content…
(ISP).
Claims and concerns have been made by these groups, suggesting that current Net Neutrality laws should be removed or restricted, based on the belief that current regulations have limited the economic growth of businesses that depend on being accessible through the internet. Although removing current Net Neutrality regulations may lead to an increase in the growth of internet-based companies, the negative effects of doing so would far outweigh the benefits for most internet users.
Despite the recent development of the concept of net neutrality, the principle of preventing service providers from denying the transferring or altering of goods was first implemented as a set of common carrier laws in the 19th century(Madrigal 1). These “common carrier” laws were created to prevent shipping companies from being able to discriminate against the voyage of certain goods. These laws, while first proposed and
implemented on shipping companies in England, eventually developed into a series of laws in America that that would be used to regulate the spread of information through technology (2). The controversy surrounding the issue of internet regulations first appeared in the 1990s when Net Neutrality advocates voiced their concerns that broadband internet services were not regulated in any form, and that this internet service should be classified as a “telecommunication service”, which would allow some restrictions to be implemented to the then unregulated service. Despite these protests, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided that broadband internet services would be declared as an “information service”, which would not allow for regulations to be implemented on the ISPs that offered such services. (Madrigal 1) This ruling dissatisfied many Net Neutrality advocates and soon led to a series of protests to change the FCC ruling on this issue. These attempts eventually resulted in a 2010 ruling by both Congress and the Federal Communications Commission that resulted in the creation of the Open Internet Order, a law which would serve as a solution to the issue by reclassifying internet access as a telecommunication service. Since the results of this ruling, many groups who are opposed to both the concept of Net Neutrality and the regulations that were placed on internet service providers as a result of the passage of this law have attempted to repeal this issue.
Most groups who are opposed to Net Neutrality have differing reasons for wanting to remove current regulations. Journalists such as Robert McMillan of Wired.com believe that the Net Neutrality regulations have limited the growth of several internet-based companies, while others such as Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times believe that current internet regulations have given many internet-based companies the advantage to be able to grow without competition. Along with this, McMillan presents the claim that the possible outcomes of removing current internet regulations such as internet service providers charging fees to access content and increasing prices are used as a means to incite a sense of paranoia among groups of people who have little to no understanding of what current net neutrality laws accomplish. Some opponents of net neutrality such as Craig Labovitz, the CEO of an internet tracking company believe that net neutrality has disrupted the natural progression of internet services, and that, “Fast lane is how the internet is built [for] today,” (McMillan). According to Harry Bruinius, the staff writer of Christian Science Monitor, the belief that current internet regulations have limited economic growth was developed as a result of the influence of lobbying efforts to Congress by internet service providers who would stand to benefit from the removal of Net Neutrality. Steve Lohr, a journalist for the New York Times, provides an outline of the possible effects that would arise from the removal of current regulations, explaining that internet service providers would be able to create a tiered system of internet access in which large internet companies and content providers would be able to negotiate with ISPs to be given priority access to internet users. This tiered system would lead to a crowding out effect of smaller corporations and content providers, preventing such groups from being able to generate the internet traffic that would be necessary for these companies to continue to operate. The graph presented below is an example of the possible scenario that may result from a repeal of current net neutrality regulations, in which access to more well-known companies such as YouTube, Netflix, and search engines such as Google would require an additional fee paid by consumers to their internet providers. While repealing current internet regulations may serve to be beneficial to large internet-based companies such as the ones mentioned above, it would also function as a way to effectively restrict a person’s access to information or content that has been deemed by their internet provider as not being in alignment with their corporate interests. In April of 2017, the FCC announced that they would vote to repeal current net neutrality regulations, suggesting that current regulations are “heavy-handed” and have disrupted investments (Kastrenakes 1). A public backlash has resulted in the form of a series of protests online. Many Net Neutrality advocates have taken to attempts of trying to inform internet users of how the proposed changes may affect them, such as in the example below. This image, along with several other similar messages have been placed on many popular websites in the days following the possible repeal announcement. Images serve as a way to inform people to the possible effects that may occur as a result of the FCC ruling and to persuade these newly-informed to be against this issue. Included in this image is the statement that Internet Service Providers may attempt to remove access to certain content, along with a means to respond to the possible scenario by contacting the FCC. As a result of this announcement, many large internet-based companies such as Netflix, Google, and Hulu have announced their intent to support and uphold current Net Neutrality regulations by refusing to cooperate with internet service providers in establishing priority access for their services if current internet regulations were to be removed (Kang 1). While these efforts may have significant public support, Kang notes that they have had little effect in changing the opinions of FCC members who have already made their decision. As a result of the announcement of the possible repeal, the Federal Communications Commission and its members who have declared their intention to repeal current Net Neutrality regulations have been targeted by several attempts to persuade them to change their vote. Some of these attempts have included letters and emails to the FCC, online petitions to prevent the vote, and personal threats that have been made towards several Federal Communications Commission members (Kang 2). These attempts show the possible severity of this issue, and the extent that some are willing to go through to preserve what they believe to be an open source of knowledge and content, no matter how misguided or detrimental their attempts may be in influencing the results of the vote.
In summation, the internet has become a source of information and entertainment that has only been able to flourish and develop in its current form as a result of the regulations that have been placed on internet service providers. The concept of Net Neutrality was developed as a way to prevent the disruption of the spread of information, and as a means to allow people to enrich themselves with the ability to access information as it is being discovered. Removing the current Net Neutrality regulations would serve as a detriment to the public, and as a benefit for the those that have already profited from an open internet.
(ISP).
Claims and concerns have been made by these groups, suggesting that current Net Neutrality laws should be removed or restricted, based on the belief that current regulations have limited the economic growth of businesses that depend on being accessible through the internet. Although removing current Net Neutrality regulations may lead to an increase in the growth of internet-based companies, the negative effects of doing so would far outweigh the benefits for most internet users.
Despite the recent development of the concept of net neutrality, the principle of preventing service providers from denying the transferring or altering of goods was first implemented as a set of common carrier laws in the 19th century(Madrigal 1). These “common carrier” laws were created to prevent shipping companies from being able to discriminate against the voyage of certain goods. These laws, while first proposed and
implemented on shipping companies in England, eventually developed into a series of laws in America that that would be used to regulate the spread of information through technology (2). The controversy surrounding the issue of internet regulations first appeared in the 1990s when Net Neutrality advocates voiced their concerns that broadband internet services were not regulated in any form, and that this internet service should be classified as a “telecommunication service”, which would allow some restrictions to be implemented to the then unregulated service. Despite these protests, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided that broadband internet services would be declared as an “information service”, which would not allow for regulations to be implemented on the ISPs that offered such services. (Madrigal 1) This ruling dissatisfied many Net Neutrality advocates and soon led to a series of protests to change the FCC ruling on this issue. These attempts eventually resulted in a 2010 ruling by both Congress and the Federal Communications Commission that resulted in the creation of the Open Internet Order, a law which would serve as a solution to the issue by reclassifying internet access as a telecommunication service. Since the results of this ruling, many groups who are opposed to both the concept of Net Neutrality and the regulations that were placed on internet service providers as a result of the passage of this law have attempted to repeal this issue.
Most groups who are opposed to Net Neutrality have differing reasons for wanting to remove current regulations. Journalists such as Robert McMillan of Wired.com believe that the Net Neutrality regulations have limited the growth of several internet-based companies, while others such as Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times believe that current internet regulations have given many internet-based companies the advantage to be able to grow without competition. Along with this, McMillan presents the claim that the possible outcomes of removing current internet regulations such as internet service providers charging fees to access content and increasing prices are used as a means to incite a sense of paranoia among groups of people who have little to no understanding of what current net neutrality laws accomplish. Some opponents of net neutrality such as Craig Labovitz, the CEO of an internet tracking company believe that net neutrality has disrupted the natural progression of internet services, and that, “Fast lane is how the internet is built [for] today,” (McMillan). According to Harry Bruinius, the staff writer of Christian Science Monitor, the belief that current internet regulations have limited economic growth was developed as a result of the influence of lobbying efforts to Congress by internet service providers who would stand to benefit from the removal of Net Neutrality. Steve Lohr, a journalist for the New York Times, provides an outline of the possible effects that would arise from the removal of current regulations, explaining that internet service providers would be able to create a tiered system of internet access in which large internet companies and content providers would be able to negotiate with ISPs to be given priority access to internet users. This tiered system would lead to a crowding out effect of smaller corporations and content providers, preventing such groups from being able to generate the internet traffic that would be necessary for these companies to continue to operate. The graph presented below is an example of the possible scenario that may result from a repeal of current net neutrality regulations, in which access to more well-known companies such as YouTube, Netflix, and search engines such as Google would require an additional fee paid by consumers to their internet providers. While repealing current internet regulations may serve to be beneficial to large internet-based companies such as the ones mentioned above, it would also function as a way to effectively restrict a person’s access to information or content that has been deemed by their internet provider as not being in alignment with their corporate interests. In April of 2017, the FCC announced that they would vote to repeal current net neutrality regulations, suggesting that current regulations are “heavy-handed” and have disrupted investments (Kastrenakes 1). A public backlash has resulted in the form of a series of protests online. Many Net Neutrality advocates have taken to attempts of trying to inform internet users of how the proposed changes may affect them, such as in the example below. This image, along with several other similar messages have been placed on many popular websites in the days following the possible repeal announcement. Images serve as a way to inform people to the possible effects that may occur as a result of the FCC ruling and to persuade these newly-informed to be against this issue. Included in this image is the statement that Internet Service Providers may attempt to remove access to certain content, along with a means to respond to the possible scenario by contacting the FCC. As a result of this announcement, many large internet-based companies such as Netflix, Google, and Hulu have announced their intent to support and uphold current Net Neutrality regulations by refusing to cooperate with internet service providers in establishing priority access for their services if current internet regulations were to be removed (Kang 1). While these efforts may have significant public support, Kang notes that they have had little effect in changing the opinions of FCC members who have already made their decision. As a result of the announcement of the possible repeal, the Federal Communications Commission and its members who have declared their intention to repeal current Net Neutrality regulations have been targeted by several attempts to persuade them to change their vote. Some of these attempts have included letters and emails to the FCC, online petitions to prevent the vote, and personal threats that have been made towards several Federal Communications Commission members (Kang 2). These attempts show the possible severity of this issue, and the extent that some are willing to go through to preserve what they believe to be an open source of knowledge and content, no matter how misguided or detrimental their attempts may be in influencing the results of the vote.
In summation, the internet has become a source of information and entertainment that has only been able to flourish and develop in its current form as a result of the regulations that have been placed on internet service providers. The concept of Net Neutrality was developed as a way to prevent the disruption of the spread of information, and as a means to allow people to enrich themselves with the ability to access information as it is being discovered. Removing the current Net Neutrality regulations would serve as a detriment to the public, and as a benefit for the those that have already profited from an open internet.