Net Neutrality: Protector of the People

Very few innovations in human history have impacted the world to the level that the internet has. Over the course of three decades the online world grew from a new invention to the primary platform of communication, information, and entertainment in the modern world. As the internet has expanded issues regarding how it should be monitored and regulated have become an integral part of both social and political debates, raising questions about what role the internet should play in contemporary society.

An advocacy remix I made explaining/arguing for net neutrality

Currently, the dominant conversation about internet access and its service providers (ISPs) revolves around a principle referred to as “net neutrality.” While net neutrality appears as an intricate set of policies on the surface its concept is fairly simple. Net neutrality was first established in 2015 with the Open Internet Order. Since 1996, ISPs had maintained a private ownership of internet access unrestrained by government regulation. It was not until the Open Internet Order that access to the internet was established as a public utility such as water, electricity, or gas. This set of regulations—initially created to administer radio communication—enforces the authority of the Federal Communications Commission over providers of certain media services considered common goods. Whether or not the internet really is a common good is a heavily contested topic of discussion.

Author Phillip M. Napoli explains in his book on media economics and industries that “From an economic standpoint, a public good is described as a product that is not ‘used up’ in consumption” (164). Under this definition, the internet is most certainly a public good as usage of its services has no impact on the remaining services available. Public utility classification ensures that immeasurable resources are equally distributed and accessible for all citizens. Regarding the internet, public utility laws prevent schemes such as throttling, blocking, or paid prioritization which are manipulative ways ISPs get whatever they want from companies using their service.

The most likely of these tactics—paid prioritization—highlights ISP’s monopolistic power over content providers. Let’s say Verizon, the primary ISP for millions of Americans, offered faster streaming speeds for the highest bidding streaming service. If Amazon is willing to pay the most, then Verizon can make Amazon Video the fastest and easiest-accessible service to all Verizon customers. However, without net neutrality and government regulation, Verizon is not only able to boost a service such as Amazon Video but may also handicap the ease of use of Amazon’s competition such as Netflix. In these situations, the provider has total control. Net neutrality laws prevent ISPs from being gatekeepers that may manipulate which people have access to which content.

However, in 2017, the FCC signed a new set of policies—the Restoring Internet Freedom Order—which repeals net neutrality thus prevents any large-scale regulation over providers. The argument in favor of this reversal is that government administration against free-market practices. The common belief on this side of the debate is that less regulation stimulates competition, innovation, and the economy as a whole. Yet, this argument against net neutrality overlooks and underestimates the internet’s role in modern society.

Access to the internet has become essential in communication, employment, education, and attaining information in today’s world. Regardless of beliefs about government regulation, allowing ISPs to act freely hinders democracy in the online world—which is only becoming more ingrained into everyday life. Instead of allowing ISPs to act as gatekeepers, the FCC should reinstate the Open Internet Order of 2015 and put the power over the internet back in the hands of its users rather than in those who merely provide its access.

List of Sources Used

Research Sources

Napoli, Phillip M. “Media Economics and the Study of Media Industries.” 2009, pp. 161–169.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/christopher-jon-sprigman-net-neutrality-explained.

www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality.

Video Clips Used in Remix

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSAnXWiMyLg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU&t=689s.