To Have, or Not to Have

What does this “net neutrality“ term floating around in the internet mean?  Freedom of speech? Non-discrimination?  Competition? Government regulation? Innovation?  Its very core principle aims at making all internet content unrestricted and accessible at the same speed.  The purpose is to make the internet a level playing field for anyone who wants to do anything legal.  Recently, congress has ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to impose such regulations.  Many are afraid this will make the internet into a “tiered” playing field for anyone who wants to put their services or contents online.  Proponents for “net neutrality” argue its removal can lead to discrimination, site restriction, and favoritism by internet service providers (ISP’s).  This will definitely hinder innovation as well as competition.

Opponents such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T say "what the heck!"  They claim the regulation clogs the internet and prevents them from offering better services for their customers.  If removed, these ISP’s will be able to create a “fast lane” for certain content that are willing to pay more.  It will better the service of the content provider, the users of the content and the ISP.  It’s a win win situation for everyone so why not?  Theoretically it appears as a sound business strategy and it is.  As Comcast or AT&T, I would fight for the removal of such regulation so I can further maximize my revenue to increase my infrastructure.  They already claimed not to degrade or restrict access to any site to counter fears of discrimination and favoritism.  What the heck. What’s the problem then?

 Let’s put it this way.  “Net neutrality” is removed.  Facebook decides to pay ISP’s more money so it can have a “fast lane” for its users.  This is great news for Facebook users, advertisers and will attract many more users or even cause switch overs.  The problem here is what about other social networks who can’t afford the fast lane service.  They get left behind.  One can argue this as pure competition, but when there is only two major ISP’s does real competition exist?  This places new start-ups at a disadvantaged position because if they cannot offer faster access to their content or service, users will choose those who can.

Remove the regulation and there is no limit to what ISP’s can do and will do.  The bigger picture here is trust between users and ISP’s.  Unfortunately history is not on ISP’s side.  History illustrates that some ISP providers have blocked certain contents and sites before.  It is just hard to trust a profit maximizing business who wants to dominate the market.  Who cares much about users if they are getting money from somewhere else.  Furthermore, who guarantees they will not block or restrict any site?  Once a blocker, always a blocker.  If net neutrality is trashed, more issues can arise.  Politicians can use their money to their advantage by bribing ISP’s.  It is possibly already happening anyways, but this will enable it a degree higher.  To an extreme, ISP's can influence what you choose and therefore what you see.  Should we let the “free market” decide on its own after it has led us to a spectacular recession recently? Or is there even a market?  You choose to have, or not to have.