Should Net Neutrality regulations be imposed in the USA?

Perspective Writers' Votes
Loading Discussion

Net Neutrality should be enforced by the US government, such as with Title II or a different regulatory system.

Pros
Cons
  • A neutral net is less complex and therefore more reliable than a system that is tuned to allow delivery of data faster here and there.

  • Net Neutrality is helpful to the overall economy. (Grouping claim; see children for support)

  • Net Neutrality Regulations (Title II) uphold justice, freedom, and similar values through fair/equal access. (Grouping claim; see children for support/exampls)

  • Internet is global. U.S. owned ISP:s regulating bandwidth will cause the Internet to splinter into smaller locally governed units based on language as has already happened in China and Russia. Other countries are not willing to cede the regulation of the Internet to U.S. operators. Revoking Net Neutrality will eventually break the Internet to pieces.

  • Net Neutrality can also influence the online market (by excluding the rights of foreign countries for example) which can be an important perspective for policy makers and consumers. An underlying aspect is the economic influence China has. If they can sell products directly to consumers and avoid dealing with major importers, China has more power over North America. But this also means consumers have more power.

  • Net Neutrality helps to protect the market from selective government intervention by committing the government to a general policy of neutrality, rather than allowing legal favoritism or "indirect/hidden distortion" (such as "quid-pro-quo distortion": incentivizing mega companies to "voluntarily" slow down content that the government doesn't like—inreturn for favorable regulations or tax breaks).

  • There is popular, bipartisan support for Net Neutrality regulations: Across each of the three major ideological groups, there are more than 2.5 times as many in favor than those opposed. Legislators should lean towards the expressed wishes of the people, because not doing so can create problems in terms of trust in government, populist anger, etc. (see children claims).

  • Net Neutrality violates the property rights of ISPs and the people who comprise or own those businesses. ISPs are the ones investing heavily in the infrastructure; it is essentially their property. If someone builds a house, they shouldn't be forced to shelter the homeless; if someone grows food, they shouldn't be forced to give that away. Thus, ISPs should have the right to decide how their infrastructure is used.

  • The regulatory regime and process, primarily Title II regulations, used to enforce net neutrality laws overregulate internet provision, creating new problems, such as compliance and reporting costs.

  • There are circumstances when requiring all data to be treated equally is not good for consumers or businesses. For example, some activity, such as medical services, is more important and thus should be given priority over other activities, such as Netflix (streaming). However, Net Neutrality regulations can lead to bottlenecks and other problematic slowdowns. (See children for more examples/support)

  • Requiring "Net Neutrality"forces network providers to operate their networks sub-optimally, increasing costs, slowing performance, or both.(Or "the costs are higher than they could be or performance is slower than it could be without Net Neutrality regulations")

  • The market can achieve general "net neutrality" without Title II regulations & getting rid of Title II regulations isn't necessarily anti net neutrality; A "neutral" net could be achieved by taking many different paths.PRO-NEUTRALITY, ANTI-TITLE II

  • (Placeholder) Net Neutrality regulations weaken the growth and improvement of internet access by discouraging investment. (Organizational/grouping claim; see children for support/examples)

  • Internet is bigger than governments and nations so it should not be some country's decision. Net neutrality and internet affairs in general should be overseen by an independent international organization with exclusive competence over the matter.

  • Net Neutrality relies on the assumption that neutral networks exist in the first place. They do not and never have. For example, banks have always had faster networks (in order to intercept market transactions to gain competitive advantage).

  • A catch-all gov’t mandate fails to address individual behaviors by ISPs and service providers on a case by case basis when individual businesses could and have historically done well in resolving traffic and efficiency issues on their own. Thus it follows a blanket regulation ignoring nuance doesn’t solve the problems that it claims to exist, so it ought not be implemented in its current state.