Why Is Abolishing Net Neutrality Was A Bad Idea?
Why Abolishing Net Neutrality Was a Bad Idea
With the recent abolishment of net neutrality, an enormous discourse has risen about the legality and ethics of the abolishment of the Obama-era law. Although many argue that net neutrality is not useful for the United States, I think that net neutrality is needed in the interest of citizens. It preserves the internet as a public good and brings important economic benefits. While the opponents of net neutrality argue that the abolishing it will help the economy by reducing investment, I contend that preserving net neutrality allows the internet to be useful to more people and reduces the government’s over-controlling grip over us.
What is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality regulates that all content on the internet is treated equally by all internet service providers (ISPs). This both prohibits the banning of any content or service and bars the slowing down of website traffic for particular websites.
The Rights of Internet Users
Net neutrality is vital if we care about preserving our rights in this ever-changing online culture. Jana Kasperkevic, in her essay “Net Neutrality: Explained,” gives a good analogy: “No net neutrality is like a taxicab refusing to take one customer but taking …show more content…
another without hesitation.” This analogy shows the inequality that will reveal itself on the world wide web without regulations like net neutrality. You can imagine the taxicabs to be the ISPs and the place you want to go to, information for a project or maybe a very important email.
Clear downsides of net neutrality can also be seen in the column by ACLU and YOUTH. This write-up condemns the abolishment of net neutrality by showing how it could ban chat rooms, censor speech and eliminate user choice. What’s important to note here is the censored speech part. As you may know, freedom of speech is one of the core rights guaranteed in our constitution.
Another negative that comes from the repeal of net neutrality is the fast lanes that would come into effect. Fast lanes are things that companies purchase to make sure their content does not get slowed down or blocked but instead gets special priority over other content that did not acquire a fast lane. A famous example of fast lanes is from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Antonin Scalia provides a hypothetical situation where Domino’s bought a fast lane from AT&T for telecommunications. Because of this, all Papa John’s customers would have to wait for every single Domino’s customer because of the original deal between AT&T and Domino’s which prioritizes all telephone traffic for Domino’s over all traffic for Papa John’s.
Economy
One of the most controversial arguments for and against net neutrality is its effect on the economy.
Oddly enough, the opposition argues that net neutrality will reduce investment in the industry. They usually refer to a study by former AT&T advisor, Hal Singer. His study suggested that net neutrality reduces investment from internet service providers. In actuality, this is not true. If we look at the facts, we see that net neutrality will actually spur investment in the internet sector. This is because net neutrality allows people to have an unadulterated view of the internet. This means that companies will be forced to fight harder to win over each potential customer. This will cause more competition, which, in turn, will help the
economy.
I referred earlier about how the opposition thinks no net neutrality will help the economy. If we consider logic, though, you will see that this belief is also misguided. This is because ISPs will be able to raise prices for the services they provide. With the squashing of net neutrality, companies can block other ISPs content. This allows the ISPs to raise prices without anyone ever knowing that they are essentially being cheated.
Lastly, I want to cover the issue of monopolies, for example, AT&T. One of the biggest companies in the US will gain a monopoly in the business in a country without net neutrality laws. This is caused by the reach of AT&T’s products. Essentially, the telecommunications company covers all of the bases. So this means they can guarantee that you will only buy their products by wiping out all advertising that isn’t theirs.
Net neutrality Protects the Little Man
Net neutrality helps safeguard small business owners and guards against hikes for the little man. Without net neutrality, small businesses and startups will struggle to compete in an industry where “the big guys can afford to buy their way in, while the little guys don’t stand a chance.” This “pay-to-win” model worries me because, as Henry Su, a former trial attorney with the FTC, says, it “undermines the way the internet has supported so many new companies.” The disruption we see from so many new companies is often based on their ability to take advantage of the current internet technology we have.
Now that we have covered the effects on small businesses and startups, we shall examine the effects for each person. According to the Quartz article “What will happen now that net neutrality is gone? We asked the experts,” most analysts, activists, and researchers agree that the average customer should expect to pay more. This can partly be explained by the statistic that 56 million households in the US only have one carrier and therefore no competition. This means that the providers in those households can swing the prices as high as they want, and customers cannot do anything about it. You can also blame this price hike on the “tariffs” companies have to pay to keep from their content being slowed down. The article from Quartz describes how the payments demanded from ISPs will be passed down to consumers and subscribers.
Finally, without net neutrality, the current internet service market will experience an “explosion” of pricing plans and caps that will limit the amount of data you can access on the internet. All these changes mean that an all-inclusive package can turn into you having to buy everything separately. For example, you would need to buy a music package, video package, gaming package, business package, etc. Also, companies will now enforce data caps which means that you will have a limited amount of internet usage if you don’t pay more. This forces people to buy more expensive packages that they can’t afford, which will just splinter the internet.
To conclude, many feel that the internet is now doomed since the abolishment of net neutrality on December 14. But I think that we should not lose hope. We should continue to protect net neutrality for our rights and to protect the little man and the public. And even if many opposers don’t believe in this, then they should at least change their minds for the sake of the economy. We can do this by sending letters to our members of Congress and speaking out in our community. And I do realize that this will be hard for people to jump ship from one side to another in such a hotly contested argument. All I’m asking is to consider all of the evidence, just like I had to do.
With the recent abolishment of net neutrality, an enormous discourse has risen about the legality and ethics of the abolishment of the Obama-era law. Although many argue that net neutrality is not useful for the United States, I think that net neutrality is needed in the interest of citizens. It preserves the internet as a public good and brings important economic benefits. While the opponents of net neutrality argue that the abolishing it will help the economy by reducing investment, I contend that preserving net neutrality allows the internet to be useful to more people and reduces the government’s over-controlling grip over us.
What is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality regulates that all content on the internet is treated equally by all internet service providers (ISPs). This both prohibits the banning of any content or service and bars the slowing down of website traffic for particular websites.
The Rights of Internet Users
Net neutrality is vital if we care about preserving our rights in this ever-changing online culture. Jana Kasperkevic, in her essay “Net Neutrality: Explained,” gives a good analogy: “No net neutrality is like a taxicab refusing to take one customer but taking …show more content…
another without hesitation.” This analogy shows the inequality that will reveal itself on the world wide web without regulations like net neutrality. You can imagine the taxicabs to be the ISPs and the place you want to go to, information for a project or maybe a very important email.
Clear downsides of net neutrality can also be seen in the column by ACLU and YOUTH. This write-up condemns the abolishment of net neutrality by showing how it could ban chat rooms, censor speech and eliminate user choice. What’s important to note here is the censored speech part. As you may know, freedom of speech is one of the core rights guaranteed in our constitution.
Another negative that comes from the repeal of net neutrality is the fast lanes that would come into effect. Fast lanes are things that companies purchase to make sure their content does not get slowed down or blocked but instead gets special priority over other content that did not acquire a fast lane. A famous example of fast lanes is from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Antonin Scalia provides a hypothetical situation where Domino’s bought a fast lane from AT&T for telecommunications. Because of this, all Papa John’s customers would have to wait for every single Domino’s customer because of the original deal between AT&T and Domino’s which prioritizes all telephone traffic for Domino’s over all traffic for Papa John’s.
Economy
One of the most controversial arguments for and against net neutrality is its effect on the economy.
Oddly enough, the opposition argues that net neutrality will reduce investment in the industry. They usually refer to a study by former AT&T advisor, Hal Singer. His study suggested that net neutrality reduces investment from internet service providers. In actuality, this is not true. If we look at the facts, we see that net neutrality will actually spur investment in the internet sector. This is because net neutrality allows people to have an unadulterated view of the internet. This means that companies will be forced to fight harder to win over each potential customer. This will cause more competition, which, in turn, will help the
economy.
I referred earlier about how the opposition thinks no net neutrality will help the economy. If we consider logic, though, you will see that this belief is also misguided. This is because ISPs will be able to raise prices for the services they provide. With the squashing of net neutrality, companies can block other ISPs content. This allows the ISPs to raise prices without anyone ever knowing that they are essentially being cheated.
Lastly, I want to cover the issue of monopolies, for example, AT&T. One of the biggest companies in the US will gain a monopoly in the business in a country without net neutrality laws. This is caused by the reach of AT&T’s products. Essentially, the telecommunications company covers all of the bases. So this means they can guarantee that you will only buy their products by wiping out all advertising that isn’t theirs.
Net neutrality Protects the Little Man
Net neutrality helps safeguard small business owners and guards against hikes for the little man. Without net neutrality, small businesses and startups will struggle to compete in an industry where “the big guys can afford to buy their way in, while the little guys don’t stand a chance.” This “pay-to-win” model worries me because, as Henry Su, a former trial attorney with the FTC, says, it “undermines the way the internet has supported so many new companies.” The disruption we see from so many new companies is often based on their ability to take advantage of the current internet technology we have.
Now that we have covered the effects on small businesses and startups, we shall examine the effects for each person. According to the Quartz article “What will happen now that net neutrality is gone? We asked the experts,” most analysts, activists, and researchers agree that the average customer should expect to pay more. This can partly be explained by the statistic that 56 million households in the US only have one carrier and therefore no competition. This means that the providers in those households can swing the prices as high as they want, and customers cannot do anything about it. You can also blame this price hike on the “tariffs” companies have to pay to keep from their content being slowed down. The article from Quartz describes how the payments demanded from ISPs will be passed down to consumers and subscribers.
Finally, without net neutrality, the current internet service market will experience an “explosion” of pricing plans and caps that will limit the amount of data you can access on the internet. All these changes mean that an all-inclusive package can turn into you having to buy everything separately. For example, you would need to buy a music package, video package, gaming package, business package, etc. Also, companies will now enforce data caps which means that you will have a limited amount of internet usage if you don’t pay more. This forces people to buy more expensive packages that they can’t afford, which will just splinter the internet.
To conclude, many feel that the internet is now doomed since the abolishment of net neutrality on December 14. But I think that we should not lose hope. We should continue to protect net neutrality for our rights and to protect the little man and the public. And even if many opposers don’t believe in this, then they should at least change their minds for the sake of the economy. We can do this by sending letters to our members of Congress and speaking out in our community. And I do realize that this will be hard for people to jump ship from one side to another in such a hotly contested argument. All I’m asking is to consider all of the evidence, just like I had to do.