The pros and cons of net neutrality
Still on the fence about net neutrality? Here's both sides of the argument
The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sent the internet into panic mode in July 2018 when it scrapped regulations for net neutrality. The law was put into place in 2015, under the Obama administration, but the FCC let them expire just three years later.
The argument for its removal was that net neutrality stifled innovation and hampered internet providers. The counter-argument says that without it there's nothing to stop an ISP offering greater bandwidths to websites that can afford to pay extra or hide premium content behind paywalls.
There are arguments for and against it, but 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 and below we have weighed up the pros and cons to help you pick your side of the debate
Freedom of expression
As long as it's legal, any blog or website or news service is available online under the concept of net neutrality. Otherwise, internet service providers could in theory block access to content they don't want you to see, like a rival video streaming site or another site that competes with their own interests, or even content they deem as unsuitable. 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.
Google can't pay for faster access to their websites, and a tiny video streaming service should in theory be as speedy and glitch-free as Netflix. Net neutrality squashes the potential for internet fast lanes, where internet service providers can charge content creators for enough bandwidth to deliver their service properly.
It also prevents the possibility of providers charging end users an extra fee to access vital services, like online banking or email, or entertainment platforms like gaming networks (or of the owners of these services from passing their costs onto end users).
Less network innovation
The rise of bandwidth-heavy web services like video streaming and content downloads means internet service providers have less money to spend on upgrading their networks, they argue. If they could charge Google, Microsoft, et al for carrying their resource-intensive services, they could invest in upgrading their networks and extending them further. However, there is data that complicates this argument, with the FCC's own industry-funded research showing that while investment fell 2% in 2015 and 3% in 2016 under net neutrality, the largest ISP increased spending, as did others.
Porn and objectionable content thrives
Some opponents of net neutrality lament how easily accessible legal but age-sensitive content like pornography is. While there are plenty of security vendors who allow families to restrict the sites available on a family computer, more children have smartphones and connected devices with which they can get online without adult supervision.
If an internet service provider could block these services at a network-wide level, this would go a long way to solving this issue. This is the case under the UK's Digital Economy Act, which will force people to verify their identity to access porn sites, and ISP-level blocking of non-compliant sites.
Providers could also crack down on peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is responsible for a lot of illegal downloads, thus preventing piracy.
No free internet access
Advocates for less oversight of internet service providers say that allowing them to charge for access to some content would lead to free access to certain sites. For example, they argue that if internet service providers charged bandwidth-hungry companies like Netflix more for using their infrastructure, they would be able offer access to sites like Wikipedia or Facebook for free - even if you had no internet contract.