Must we draw a line?

In the battle for net neutraliy, there are no neutral parties. For this two sided debate, each side carries a double edged sword. The current debate is reminiscent of the lasseiz-faire argument earlier in America's history that also focused on regulation and government intervention in big business. Though to many it seems ideal to have an unrestricted flow of information while allowing the large companies to do as they please, some problems are evident. By allowing the large internet companies to run free, we may see the microsoft anti-trust dilemma resurface with Google, Time Warner, or any other telecomm/net conglomerate. With the ability to takeover threatening companies and boycott competing apps, it is more than feasible that a company aquire a monopolistic market share. A proposed legislation would force a minimum amount of internet service providers in order to avoid such a situation. Also, legislation may be used to promote innovation of internet services and technology to ensure a high quality of service. Despite the seeming familiarity of the situation, the Internet is a new and unique phenomenon, behaving unlike any entity the world has ever seen.

It seems paradoxical for net neutralists to push for a rule for the internet, but the sort of rule they are pushing for would merely ensure the sanctity of personal freedom and equality on the web. They don't want government censorship and regulation of information and they certainly dont want to have to pay for extra services. Because of the polarizing nature of the debate, it sometimes becomes difficult to discern friend from foe.

To me, it seems that the large telecomm corporations should be feared most since they have the most to gain. Though Google and Microsoft seem to be friendly and pro-user, they are essentially the ones in control now, and should not be totally trusted either. This debate has huge implications for American's individual freedoms. I think the best course of action would be to keep an open debate without rushing to any rash decisions with the goal of a compromise in mind.

here is a video produced by an anti-neutrality lobbyist. notice how it almost seems to be pro-neutral - the key is the diction. the comments are insightful as well.



what no neutrality could mean: