Reading Response #9

Net neutrality, which is also known as the open internet, "is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources or blocking others." What this means is that an ISP such as AT&T would not be able to charge content providers, like Netflix, a premium fee in order for their service to propagate through the ISPs network quicker than other services and they ISP would also not be allowed to throttle the performance of services which are provided by their competitors via their network. 

The arguments for net neutrality are that it allows an even playing field for businesses that depend on the internet for their service to be provided and provides an open forum for internet discussion and general activity as well as taking away power from an industry that is already a monopoly in most areas. Net neutrality allows all businesses equal access and priority to an ISPs network instead of the ISP charging larger companies that can afford it a premium to have their services be faster and better than others. This allows a even playing field for small businesses and start ups. In addition having an open internet allows people of different groups the ability to communicate and make plans. An example would be an LGBTQ group using a forum to organize their next rally and this could be harmed with the loss of net neutrality because if the ISP did not sympathize with this group they could block that website from being used on its network and hurt the ability of minority groups to be heard. 

The arguments against it were that it causes a decrease in the development of new technologies for improving network speed, reliability, etc. and that the evils that net neutrality proponents talk about in my previous paragraph are all not relevant. The article There’s nothing neutral about net neutrality discusses how ISPs are not monopolies and would not stifle the ability of start-ups to function. Those against an open internet would argue that the money taken from the premium network charge would be used to further the research and development that is being done in terms of ISP networks. 

I am fully for an open internet because I believe that the internet was created for the ability of people to share things and communicate with each other on an open platform where everyone can be heard as equals and getting rid of net neutrality does not afford us this. I liked the way that the Obama administration handled net neutrality by making ISPs a common carrier under Title 2 of the Communications Act, so that is how I would handle implementing it. My response to preventing innovation is that net neutrality does not cause it by making it more difficult, but instead the stop of development and innovation is due to ISPs not putting as much money into development ever since the new rules on net neutrality came out (The internet is fucked (again)).