I had always seen the anxious and fervent Reddit threads proclaiming the need for net-neutral legislation. I never really understood the hype behind it, although I was able to understand the basic principles, as an engineer and as a heavy consumer of the Internet.
The idea of a neutral internet stems from the fact that packets of data traffic should be treated equally, regardless of origin, destination, or content. The argument is that this grants consumers a degree of privacy as well as protection from monopolistic and price-gouging practices from ISPs. An argument is that this protection is good for innovation in the form of small business and startups – entrepreneurs who can’t afford a “fast-lane” for their high-traffic app or product would still be able to compete in a fair marketplace.
The arguments against net neutrality claim that such regulations actually stifle innovation and create a worse internet experience for most consumers. Opponents of net neutrality understand that Netflix might account for X percentage of internet traffic so there is no reason that they shouldn’t be able to pay for a higher throughput. Such an arrangement is (arguably) better for consumers and for content producers.
Another argument against net neutrality is that the Internet has never been “open” in the sense that packets are not discriminated against. Even since early on in the days of the Internet, ISPs have given precedence to certain packets based on content and purpose. For example, packets containing data bound for services such as Telnet and other interactive protocols received higher “precedence” than non-interactive and less immediately needed packets. So any push to make the internet more “neutral” would not just be a safeguard against manipulation that harms consumers; it would actively disrupt a standard of data routing that is a current staple of the Internet.
In all, I think net neutrality is unnecessary and ultimately harmful. Though protecting consumers from price-gouging and other harmful practices is important and definitely a worthy concern, the best way to go about it is not with sweeping and heavy-handed regulation. Leaving the internet generally open to new protocols and allowing the old ones to continue is important for the continuation of an available and well-maintained internet. Regulations should be put in place to keep consumers safe from certain practices (the thought of paying ISPs for access to certain websites is terrifying, when you think about it compared to the current cable TV model), but sweeping regulations and reclassifications like some are proposing is simply stifling to innovation and efficiency, and an open-market solution is far preferable.
Jack thoughts 