The Debate on Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality: The Battle Rages on

The Net Neutrality Debate

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that net neutrality, as Laudon and Laudon (2020) point out, could simply be defined as “the idea that Internet service providers must allow customers equal access to content and applications, regardless of the source or nature of the content” (265). This is more or less the same meaning that Mapua (2016) assigns to net neutrality. As Mapua further point out, net neutrality essentially implies that favoritism is not applied in any manner or form in relation to the data travelling over the networks of Internet service providers. It therefore follows that net neutrality happens to be an instrumental principle in efforts to further advance the openness and fairness of Internet utilization. Over the past few years, there has been raging debate on the subject of net neutrality. On one side of the debate are those opposed to the same, while on the other side we have those who are of the opinion that nothing should be done to repel net neutrality.

Those in favor of net neutrality are inclusive of, but they are not limited to: various small businesses and bloggers; major consumer groups; big enterprises which also happen to be heavy bandwidth consumers such as Google, Netflix and Amazon; as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Laudon and Laudon, 2020). There are a host of reasons that those who advocate for net neutrality have fronted for their position. One such reason is that in the absence of net neutrality, differentiated pricing would likely be effected. Such a move, as Laudon and Laudon (2020) point out would result in the imposition of “heavy costs on heavy bandwidth users such as YouTube, Skype, and other innovative services, preventing high-bandwidth startup companies from gaining traction” (265). Yet another valid concern has got to do with the real possibility of some internet service providers including Comcast, which also happens to be a cable enterprise, blocking content from companies such as Hulu or even Netflix – in an attempt to drive traffic to their movie rental services that happen to be ‘on-demand.’ This would obviously harm the interests of online video streaming companies.

On the other hand, those opposed to net neutrality are inclusive of Ajit Pai (a Trump administration appointee at the FCC). They present equally compelling reasons for their position. Pai is convinced that consumers would be able to benefit from lower prices following the repeal of net neutrality. In his opinion, this is more so the case given that ISPs would likely seek to “offset their costs with the use of paid prioritization deals with websites for faster delivery of their content” (Laudon and Laudon, 2020, p. 265). However, it would be prudent to note that as the authors further point out, this is a point of view that has been aggressively countered by those in support of neutrality. More specifically, they make an observation to the effect that in the absence of net neutrality, the internet would likely be more confusing, pricier, and faster.

The Impact of a Switch to a Tiered Service Model

A switch to a tiered service model would likely have a negative impact on not only individual users, but also on the government and businesses. To begin with, when it comes to businesses, it would be prudent to note that they would likely have to endure higher operational costs. This is more so the case given that as Laudon and Laudon (2020) point out, there are those who have argued that the creation of an Internet that could be described as ‘two-tiered’ would likely result in apps and websites being forced to start paying ISPs fees – with those who refuse to pay up being blocked or slowed down.

On the other hand, when it comes to consumers, they would likely lose out in terms of the variety of content they can gain access to. This is more so the case given that they would be unable to access content from those apps and websites that refuse or are unable to pay the ISP charges. In effect, this would mean that Internet users have only partial access to the said Internet. Secondly, consumers would also be disadvantaged in the sense that the repeal of net neutrality standards would likely result in internet services being sold in bundles by broadband providers. To a large extent, in line with the bundling system, this would mean that consumers who intend to gain access to certain sites such as Twitter and Facebook would need to make payments for what Laudon and Laudon, 2020 refer to as a “premium social media package” (265). Consumers would, thus have to dig deeper into their pockets to access specific content – which is akin to being denied access.

With regard to the government, it would also likely lose out on the revenue generation front. This is more so the case given that as Laudon and Laudon (2020) indicate, doing away with net neutrality would favor industry giants and likely disadvantage small businesses following the creation of an uneven playing ground. Thus, there is a real possibility that quite a number of small businesses would fold up, effectively decreasing the revenues that the government collects in terms of taxes and resulting in an increase in the unemployment rate.

The Relevance of the Net Neutrality Discourse

There are those who have in the past pointed out that net neutrality happens to be one of the most crucial concerns in as far as matters of greatest relevance to the Internet are concerned. In my opinion, this is largely the case owing to the fact that there is need to ensure that the Internet remains a level playing field for all. Any move to repeal net neutrality would in effect make it possible for ISPs to select whom to work with and whom not to work with. To a large extent, this would mean that many of those that fail to keep up with the demands of broadband providers would be severely disadvantaged. This could have an adverse or negative effect on innovation and advancement of new technologies. To bring these assertions into perspective, there would be need to consider the possibility that we would not be having companies such as YouTube and Netflix today had ISPs been allowed to either limit or block video streaming from earlier on.

According to Pickard and Berman (2019), net neutrality also plays a key or instrumental role in the further advancement of freedom of opinion and expression. It is important that individual freedom of expression and opinion is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any move to oppose net neutrality would essentially advance immense power to a few internet service providers. On the basis of the discussion highlighted above, these ISPs would have not only the capability, but also the incentive to limit or block access to some content – effectively suppressing content/viewpoints from those who are unable to pay the prerequisite fees. In essence, as Pickard and Berman (2019) point out, net neutrality advances the idea or conception that “ISPs are not to create special arrangements with services or websites, in which companies providing them are given improved network access or speed” (173).