Pros
Net neutrality allows all data to be transmitted to all, irrespective of where it originates or the type of data. Companies will not be allowed to charge more based on what is being transmitted. As mentioned previously, Comcast would not be allowed to charge more for using Netflix in an effort to promote their own video-on-demand services.
Without these boundaries, innovation is also protected. Everyone has the same opportunities and has the same starting point, so this resource can be utilized by all in a way that most benefits them. There are no cost inhibitors limiting the amount of innovation. Just like the City’s Water Division where I work, I do not have full power to control how the citizens use their water.
We only charge for access. (Now, water is a different type of resource so we charge for how much is used, but it comes down to production reasons and raising capital for system improvements, not based on HOW it is used). Legislation is slow – a government that moves too fast can pose serious threats if not all citizens are considered. The benefit of government not being intertwined allows users to advance at their own speeds and not limited to government speed.
127 our experts are availableright now
Illegal activities are still monitored. If illegal content is found, a website can be shut down, media removed, and so forth. While increasing regulation could control the quantity, it hampers the benefits of net neutrality. What helps is the presence of freedom of expression for all. Blogs, news sites, and even businesses can use expression to promote within the confines of the law. An effective way to limit the amount of illegal content is to also empower users to report any illegal content to the domain owner.
Cons
With net neutrality in place, all data is treated equal in terms of cost. The person using Netflix and streaming on questionable sites or illegally file sharing is in no way charged more than a person simply checking email. The large amounts of data from one consumer take away from the use of others, and there is no hierarchy in control to ensure everyone gets an optimal experience.
This also refrains from having any money to continue to improve infrastructure to further development. More and more communities could have fiber communication, for instance. In the Water Division, the higher using consumers pay a higher rate once the base volume that all users are allocated is exceeded. With higher consumption comes more deterioration on system integrity, so the money from the additional tier funds the increase in operating costs to meet the demand.
Any increase in cost to use a service will come right to the customer- no company will pay these charges for its customers. This is just how Santa Fe’s “sugar tax” would have only penalized the consumers. Beyond just cost, demographics could influence the Internet’s pricing and distribution – only those most fit to pay could have access versus how it is now.
As a counterargument to the above pro, service providers could charge more based on what is being accessed. These service providers could limit speeds or even ban services that rival their business as attempted previously in history – research Comcast’s case against BitTorrent.
Net neutrality makes it easier for questionable or illegal material to survive. Without it, regulation has an easier time keeping this material inaccessible in the first place and not relying on society to report the behavior.
As a counterargument to the utility point made above, as population slows down or the amount of new accounts slows down, the there is less profit from a new customer coming in. The deterioration of the system, however, is still happening and the need for money invested is still there. So the cost can go up, resulting in the cost of the same service increasing.
Each pro comes with a con and vice versa. The duty each of us has is to find a balance that benefits the majority of its users. Full regulation and full neutrality represents both extremes. A balance between the two is what we should aim to maintain.
