When I was in elementary school, I was allowed to have a half hour of computer time per day. Normally during that half hour, I played Roller Coaster Tycoon or Backyard Soccer but on special days, I would go on the Internet. I remember clicking on the icon, listening as the dial-up connection sound started to ring, and patiently waiting for the Internet to open. Although the Internet speed was incredibly slow by today’s standards, I didn’t know the difference and I happily waited a few minutes every time I wanted to go to a new website.
Today the Internet opens instantaneously when I click on the icon, and I grow impatient if it takes more than fifteen seconds to open my email or Netflix. We live in a world of incredible convenience, and I sometimes forget how much technology has improved in such a short time. Now the debate over net neutrality has the potential to change the world of Internet again.
Our team has been discussing many potential topics for our policy paper including the controversy surrounding net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications, regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
The debate over net neutrality has intensified since the Federal Communications Commission proposed a policy that bans broadband providers from blocking or slowing down specific websites, but that allows content companies to pay for preferential treatment. Over 800,000 people have commented on the proposal exemplifying how much of a divide net neutrality has already caused.
In an article in USA Today, Michael Wolff characterizes each of the sides in the net neutrality debate, and after reading his article, I realized just how many different kinds of people have different opinions on the matter.
Internet service providers argue that if a content provider uses more data, they should have to pay more money. I think this makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. Wolff explains how as much as 70% of Internet-distributed data is now video, and 50% of that data is used by Netflix. Why shouldn’t Netflix pay a little bit more for the extra data they use?
On the other hand, bit content providers like Google and Netflix do not want to pay extra money, which is also fair and logical. The business aspect of the debate is a classic demand and supply issue. The suppliers of Internet want to charge as high as price for their service as the content companies (the demanders of the service) are willing to pay.
Another side of the argument deals with free speech. Proponents of net neutrality assert that the only way to protect free speech on the Internet is to prevent service providers from having the opportunity to block or slow down access to certain websites. They also argue that if companies have to pay more to use more data, then bigger companies like Google and Netflix will dwarf smaller start up companies who cannot afford to pay the extra fees.
Although I do not know enough about net neutrality to render my own opinion, I do know that the debate is intensifying and no matter what policy is implemented eventually there will be many people who agree and many who disagree. Net neutrality would be a very interesting topic to write about for our policy papers and I am excited to learn more about it!
Sources:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/whatisnetneutrality.htm
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/16/5-main-themes-emerge-in-net-neutrality-debate/?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/09/21/net-neutrality-debate/15881687/
Follow Us!