Net Neutrality is a somewhat controversial concept regarding the public’s equal access to all types of data from the web through their Internet Service Provider (ISP). It says that ISPs are required to provide all of the (legal) data they serve at the same rate and without extra charge to their providers in exchange for faster service. The potential impact here includes preventing ISPs for charging providers for faster connections and from charging customers for different types of data.

The argument for net neutrality is relatively straightforward. It begins with the assumption that the internet is a utility. In this case, ISPs would be charging for content they didn’t create. A simplified version of the ISPs job is to take the data from the provider and give it to the consumer. To that end, it shouldn’t matter if the data is a video on Netflix, a newspaper article, or a flash game. Data is data. Charging more for certain types of data would make as much sense as if the price of gasoline was proportional to the price of your car. Just because your car was more expensive, it doesn’t mean the gas was any more expensive to produce and transport to its current location. It would be taking advantage of demand without having anything new to supply.

Furthermore, one could argue that net neutrality prevents the stifling of innovation and competition. In “Ending net neutrality will end the Internet as we know it,” Steve Wozniak and Michael Copps argue for Net Neutrality, saying, “woe to the start-up that wants to build the next great Web service — it could find itself in the slow lane, unable to compete with established firms. And pity the local blogger who criticizes her ISP’s crummy service — the broadband gatekeeper would be free to slow or silence her.” This makes sense; the companies that could afford the fastest service are companies that are already established and profitable. Startups and smaller corporations wouldn’t be able to afford higher fees for faster service.

On the other side of the argument, it can be argued that Net Neutrality is unnecessary and even unjust regulation. The current internet cost model involves putting the entire cost of the internet service on the consumer. If Net Neutrality was abolished, then ISPs could pass some of the cost of providing content back onto the content producer instead of overburdening the customer. This way, customers would pay less for the same content. Further, customers could enjoy the benefit of faster service if an edge provider chose to pay to put their content in the “fast lane.”

In addition, it would be against the very principles of a free market system to limit a potential market. The ISPs provide a connection between customers and edge providers. There are demands for fast connections and slow connections. While it’s currently legal to charge different rates to the customer for different connection speeds, the same things is currently illegal to do for the edge provider. This regulation just doesn’t make sense in a free market.

After looking at both sides of the issue, I tend to agree with the first argument. The second argument against Net Neutrality contains several speculative statements that I believe wouldn’t play out as described. For example, I believe that instead of reducing costs for the consumer by charging the edge provider for faster speeds, the ISPs would keep prices the same for the consumer, plus charge the edge provider. Similarly, the ISPs can’t just magically create a faster lane when edge providers start paying for it. If they could provide faster service, they would have already. This means that instead of a fast lane, you would see some companies pay to stay in the normal lane while everyone else is relegated to the slow lane. This is a lose-lose on both ends for the consumer and the edge provider. While this is also speculative, I feel confident in my hypothesis based on the amount of money ISPs are using to lobby for the abolition of Net Neutrality. The only reason that ISPs are spending millions is that they believe they would be able to make that money back and then some if the regulations were removed.

As far as implementing and enforcing Net Neutrality, I believe it is already well in place. If companies are found to be data limiting edge providers or selectively charging for types of data, they should be fined in escalating amounts as the number of offenses increases. This would put a burden on ISPs trying to break the rules, but should allow for an increase in innovation due to a free (from bias) internet. The government is needed in this situation to prevent the tragedy of the commons. If ISPs were left to act in their own self interest, they would stifle innovation on the net that is required for content, and therefore the ISPs, to exist in the first place.