The pros and cons of net neutrality
Still on the fence about net neutrality? Here are both sides of the argument
Over the past few years, the term net neutrality has rarely been out of the headlines.
Back in February 2021, the US state of California was granted the right to bring in its own legislation regarding the issue after a federal judge denied a motion put forward by four broadband and telecom industry groups.
These companies had pushed that a "state-by-state approach to Internet regulation” may be confusing to consumers and also make investments into networks more difficult.
Net neutrality laws have brought about considerable confusion in the past and, in order to really comprehend the importance of this ruling, it's useful, and essential, to examine how the law first came into effect.
On 26 February 2015, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted for net neutrality and this was upheld by the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals in June 2016. Despite this, the ruling had one huge flaw which had been apparently overlooked: a short expiry date. Two years later, this was fairly easy to overturn, under opponent of net neutrality president Donald Trump.
To combat this, California decided to adopt its own legislation requiring net neutrality, and the decision was subsequently opposed by the US Justice Department. This department only withdrew its legal challenge following the appointment of president Joe Biden, a Democrat and proponent of the law.
Public opinion has been divided for years on the topic of net neutrality, and there's obviously a range of pros and cons when it comes to this matter. The argument for its removal was that it had been a burden on internet providers and stifled innovation. On the other hand, others say that without net neutrality there is nothing preventing an ISP from hiding premium content behind paywalls or offering greater bandwidths to websites that can afford to pay extra.
Building an open, secure, and flexible edge infrastructure
Driving the next wave of innovationFree Download
However, the basic concept of net neutrality is that all traffic should be treated fairly, without penalising or prioritising traffic from a domain name, service provider or publisher. Net neutrality protections are already enshrined in European law, with EU directives ruling that "providers of [internet] services should treat all traffic equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference".
This is no longer the case in the US, where net neutrality campaigners fear that without legislation to keep them in check, companies will use their stranglehold on the deployment of broadband to boost the popularity and availability of the other services they own at the expense of smaller firms.
However, who is right and wrong in the case for net neutrality is more complex than it seems, so we've set out the pros and cons of net neutrality to help you pick your side of the debate.
Pros of net neutrality
Freedom of expression
Net neutrality currently prevents ISPs from controlling the content their users can and cannot view on the web. This is crucial for media organisations, for example, and users can ultimately pick and choose from which organisation, or organisations, they get their news.
Rolling back net neutrality could potentially threaten freedom of speech and access to a diversity of ideas if ISPs chose to block voices that don’t align with their business interests. Net neutrality lets all the many, diverse people in the world have a voice online, for better or worse.
Promotes innovation and competition
An open internet ensures that larger companies don't have yet another advantage over a tiny startup. It's a level playing field on the internet, where everything is delivered as fast as possible to the end user.
Being socially responsible in the developing world
Sample our exclusive Business Briefing contentDownload now
If it were allowed under the current rules, there is no doubt that the wealthiest online companies would pay to have their websites available on so-called internet fast lanes.
Net neutrality currently prevents ISPs from charging willing companies to have their users able to connect to their services quicker than others, like industry competitors. For example, removing net neutrality could lead to scenarios where Netflix is able to outbid the likes of Amazon Prime Video and have its shows delivered to users quicker, and perhaps with less lag, than its rivals.
End users also currently enjoy access to vital services such as online banking and email all for free thanks to net neutrality. If rules were to change, however, there could exist a possibility that ISPs tack on an additional fee for users wishing to access such services over their network.
Cons of net neutrality
Less network innovation
The rise of more sophisticated internet services, particularly video content, has created greater demand on bandwidth. This, according to many providers, has forced the need for greater spend on capacity, diverting funds away from service innovation.
Services providers maintain that if they were able to charge the likes of Google and other major developers of resource-intensive internet platforms, they could divert these funds into upgrading networks and extending service availability.
However, the FCC’s own industry-funded research has shown that although investment fell by 2% in 2015 and 3% in 2016 while under net neutrality rules, many of the largest ISPs increased innovation spending.
Porn and objectionable content thrives
Opponents of net neutrality have also argued that the rules make it easier for underage users to access legal, but age-sensitive pornography. While many software providers offer built-in tools for restricting access to certain services or websites, net neutrality opponents argue these are ineffective as many younger users will simply turn to their mobile devices, which they can use without adult supervision.
Providers argue that if they were able to block these sites at a network-wide level, this would remove the problem at its source. This is something that exists under the UK’s Digital Economy Act, which demands that websites host identity verifications when users access their content, and forces ISPs to block sites that do not comply.
There’s also an argument that the removal of net neutrality laws would allow ISPs to crack down on peer-to-peer file-sharing websites, which are a major source of illegal content and online piracy.
No free Internet access
Proponents of repealing net neutrality argue the case that more vital services could be made accessible for free if the companies that siphon a lot of bandwidth are charged for their heavy use.
Video streaming websites, for example, are among a newer generation of internet services that demand a greater portion of bandwidth in order to function properly. If it cost money to access the likes of Netflix and YouTube, some argue this could make services like Wikipedia free to all.
Four strategies for building a hybrid workplace that works
All indications are that the future of work is hybrid, if it's not here alreadyFree webinar
The digital marketer’s guide to contextual insights and trends
How to use contextual intelligence to uncover new insights and inform strategiesFree Download
Ransomware and Microsoft 365 for business
What you need to know about reducing ransomware riskFree Download
Building a modern strategy for analytics and machine learning success
Turning into business valueFree Download