Despite the distractions caused by recent scandals and the ongoing drama of U.S. politics at the moment, net neutrality is still at the center of much debate. Some efforts to remove it have even moved forward in Congress, much to the chagrin of supporters and to the benefit of internet service providers (ISPs). The FCC has recently considered killing net neutrality, bringing the issue to the forefront of interested parties’ radars.
If you’re wondering what net neutrality is, to summarize, it is a series of laws and guidelines that have been adopted by most Western governments to ensure all content and data are treated the same by ISPs and government organizations. It is intended to prevent discrimination of the user or host based on political views or for potential financial gains. Some of the things it prohibits, for example, are:
• An ISP “fast lane” allowing ISPs to charge websites and online services for improved bandwidth or priority over other services.
• A government or ISP ability to throttle (make loading times impossibly slow) political content of one view or another.
• Discrimination against a particular IP address or user to leverage higher rates or prohibit access to certain content.
Net neutrality, for most people, equates to keeping the internet an egalitarian arena where websites can easily and freely rise through the ranks. Proponents argue it keeps internet standards high and fosters free speech for people around the world. Without it, they worry governments and corporations will control the flow of information more strictly to keep people in the dark.
Opponents argue not all services use the same amount of data and that popular services should be charged extra to make up for their increased bandwidth use.
Do the effects of net neutrality make it an essential right? Here are some perspectives and questions you should consider:
The Right to Obtain Information
What is the right of an American citizen to obtain information freely? While no one has a constitutionally protected right to access Netflix, many people must communicate using the internet, and very few people have the ability to choose among more than one ISP. While still a young technology, a compromised internet would wreak havoc on the economy and have far-reaching effects on our society.
Additionally, the internet is a direct contest to the government’s control of information, something people interested in freedom of speech and expression should note. Many people also see ISPs acting like a monopoly, making the calls to keep control away from them a matter of great importance.
Finally, the internet is more commonly being used as a virtual space for assembly, especially between citizens otherwise separated by distance. This is a guaranteed right, so from the point of view of this argument, net neutrality is a basic right.
Who Owns the Internet?
In many regards, we could ask ourselves who owns the power grid? Private companies can own windmills, power stations, dams, etc., but they wouldn’t be able to do much without the existing power infrastructure. Similarly, how far would ISPs go without the use of public funds and infrastructure to deliver information to people?
Many arguments in favor of net neutrality often compare internet access to a utility or specifically seek internet access to be treated as a necessary utility in the eyes of the law. Opponents to this line of thought bring up that the internet is not essential for life and that leaving things the way they are could damage innovation on the part of ISPs.
An Extension of Privacy
Net neutrality and online privacy are closely related issues, and someone who feels strongly on one issue likely feels strongly about the other. To fully reap the benefits of laxed net neutrality laws, more information would need to be gathered on websites and users, digging more into the online privacy concerns many have had since the PATRIOT Act and Snowden’s leaks.
The debate over privacy still continues today in the courts, and if privacy becomes a more protected right either by the courts or by Congress, net neutrality could very well be seen as part of that right.
Protection Into Their Own Hands
Whether the guidelines of net neutrality are brought down or not, people are very concerned and will likely take steps to protect their privacy and hinder efforts by ISPs and governments to keep tabs on them. Should net neutrality be abolished, we’ll only see an increase in these efforts and a strong campaign to bring it back by those currently fighting to preserve it.
In the event net neutrality were eliminated, we would likely see the following:
• An increase in the usage of Virtual Private Networks and proxies to hide IP addresses from ISPs and other organizations.
• Anonymous campaigns and protests, some of them cybercriminal in nature, demanding the return of net neutrality guidelines as an essential right.
• Attempts by ISPs to guarantee neutrality in their services with the hope of distinguishing themselves from the competition.
We would also have other unforeseen consequences, depending on when changes take effect and their extent. Regardless of whether the government or corporations think it’s a right, some people do, and they will fight for it.
What are your thoughts on net neutrality? Are you for or against it? Who do you think is really pulling the strings on this important issue, and do you think anything can be done?
About the Author: Sandra O'Hare is a freelance political writer and blogger whose main focus is to help raise awareness about the state of corporate power. She has, in her lifetime, seen corporations become immensely influential and manipulative, and she is worried about what that means for America’s future. As a frequent contributor to the website The Right Side of Truth, she is working to get the word out there so that people can make truly informed decisions regarding the rapid rise of digital technology. As she aptly puts it: "We must trust where we get our information. Otherwise, our fate lies in the hands of others."
media-underground.net