Nowadays, it is hard to imagine a world without Facebook, YouTube, Google, and their many counterparts and offshoots. The widespread reliance on and usage of various Internet-based sites and programs goes to show how influenced modern society has been by the advent of the digital era. But with great power comes great responsibility, and Internet service providers (ISPs) appear to be trying to up their role in regulating Internet connections and content. Such a policing of Internet traffic comes packed with dangers. It has the potential to violate various rights that we hold dearly, such as freedom of speech, and resultingly impact what should be unrestricted communication between individuals.
Net neutrality is the principle that the government should prevent ISPs from interfering with Internet traffic, giving all content providers an equal voice on the web. There are a number of viewpoints on this issue. Net neutrality is viewed by many liberals (including Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple, and Barack Obama) as necessary for a functional and safe Internet, and many conservatives as against free market principles. The policing of web communications is comparable to slicing a silken spider web into a ragged bunch of bits. No matter the viewpoint taken, it is safe to say that the pressing issue of net neutrality remains widely debated.
There are currently laws and regulations in effect that attempt to ensure that some degree of net neutrality is preserved. However, within a period of time, these laws could very well cease to exist due to a number of powerful forces being against net neutrality. A testament to the threats posed to net neutrality is Donald Trump’s Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai. Pai has prohibited nine companies from issuing discounted high-speed and has taken a number of other stances in opposition to net neutrality that may continue to further damage this core principle of the web. Additionally, the communications giant Comcast has controversially blocked traffic from BitTorrent, a popular venue for Internet piracy, in a major violation of one of the tenets of net neutrality: one should not discriminate based on the type of traffic.
In a sense, it is understandable why someone may not completely agree with net neutrality. Some forms of traffic, such as peer-to-peer torrent-based traffic, are popularly used for pirating copyrighted content, making them relatively undesirable in the eyes of ISPs. Torrenting can also prove taxing on bandwidth. However, although there may be people using this traffic for the wrong reason, not every single individual who wishes to utilize the BitTorrent protocol is a crook.
BitTorrent is frequently cited in an umbrella argument about taking up too much bandwidth. Among the other bandwidth-devourers are VOIP (a means of transmitting voice through the Internet that is present in applications like Skype) and the service dreaded by ISPs but loved by almost all others, Netflix. The popular video-streaming service does take a serious toll on data bandwidth. With bandwidth being a resource that ISPs must pay for, it is natural that they see Netflix as a problem. But make no mistake; ultimately it is we, the customers, who are paying for Internet services, and we should have the freedom to watch programs of our liking if we deem it worthwhile.
Senator Ted Cruz, having taken money from Comcast during his campaign, has publicly spoken out against net neutrality. Although he may have wholly valid reasons for his position on net neutrality, his argument is suspect due to his business connection. Quite a large number of corporations take a semi-hostile stance towards net neutrality, although many prefer not to admit it. Personally, I think that placing restrictions on the web or limiting offerings poses a large threat to our freedoms. Internet access is becoming more and more of a necessity for everyone in the country. Limiting that resource, even in a manner that isn’t malicious, can have an adverse effect on work, education, and leisure. Since we pay for the Internet already, we should have a fully-fledged Internet, not some shriveled husk of an Internet that pretends to be something that it isn’t.
Imposing strong restrictions on net neutrality may further erode freedom of expression. What if an ISP filtered out and blocked all of the customer traffic going to and from the New York Times website because of their qualms with the publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger? Would it be fair and just to do so? Another danger that may arise in the future is the use of the bandwidth excuse to censor sites or services.
Money talks, but people talk too. It is important to speak out against the greed and personal motives of ISPs. We should not let big companies or the government interfere with freedom of speech. The ordinary person’s ability to use the Internet shouldn’t be hindered. The web is being put to use more frequently than before and it is being picked up as a prime communications channel, as reflected by the school’s adoption of the Chromebook and the uploading of class assignments to Google Classroom. Less an optional service nowadays than a critical resource, the accessibility of the Internet should not be inhibited.