Net Neutrality, also known as “Open Internet”, is the concept that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally (assuming it is legal). This means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) cannot slow down access to certain sites, or provide faster connections to other sites. A common example is Netflix, where some service providers have been requiring Netflix to pay fees in order to ensure that customers receive fast access to the streaming site. Net Neutrality forbids this kind of behavior, as all traffic must be treated equally. To ensure this, Net Neutrality proponents want government regulation of internet providers that provides explicit rules on what is and is not legal for ISPs to do with regard to their traffic. Proponents claim that preserving a free flow of traffic on the internet is essential to the good of the users, and to support technology businesses. They are concerned that if traffic is allowed to be prioritized, then this will hurt innovation as the barrier of entry for new competitors, such as technology startups, will be extraordinarily high. It would have been extremely difficult for Google/Facebook/LinkedIn/etc to rise in popularity if they had needed to pay for users to be able to access their services on the internet. On the flip side, opponents are concerned with heavy-handed government regulation. They think that if the space is regulated too much, it will stagnate as companies find it difficult to make business cases for new technologies.
Personally, I firmly believe in the concept of Net Neutrality. From a customer perspective, I am paying for access to the internet, not access to particular sites. I do not want to have my access to lawful sites be determined by my service provider. Also, as an engineer who enjoys working on new and interesting ideas, the startup argument speaks to me. I think that the steps taken by the FCC with the new proposed rules are a great way to start enforcing net neutrality. The idea of classifying ISPs as common carriers seems logical to me, as the internet is as ubiquitous today as landline telephones have been in the past.
There is of course a danger here of over-regulation of the internet industry. The internet is known for being a free spirited area where anything is possible. However, I think the current proposals strike a good balance here, and provide for a very soft hand in regulation that provides for the bare necessities. As The Verge reports, the FCC has not applied over 700 of the rules for telephone carriers to ISPs. As for the idea that this puts an undue burden on the companies, treating all traffic as equal is actually easier from a technical perspective. It requires no extra work to treat all traffic the same. While it may bring in more profit for the companies to make deals to favor traffic, it also requires more engineering work. I also do not really see the argument that it will hinder innovation. The goal of net neutrality is to allow the internet to continue to grow as it has been for the past 20 years. As content types change user demands, infrastructure will continue to evolve to support this.
kosercseethics 