Getting a Handle on the Net Neutrality Debate

I'm trying to get a handle on the pros and cons regarding net neutrality. My initial response was "Of course I want net neutrality. Who wouldn't want a free and open Internet? I don't want the ISPs making it difficult for me to visit the sites I want." But I decided to look into it a little more in order to determine if my response is valid. I went through several articles on the Internet so that I could see the debate more clearly: CNET, Bill Moyers, PublicKnowledge.org, etc. etc. etc. However, for the sake of brevity, I've only listed two articles here that caught my attention. I listed their key points along with my comments in italics. I also used the assigned readings and video as background so that I could state these points more clearly.


"FAQ: The FCC's Plan to Reclassify Broadband"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20004392-266.html

• FCC wants to re-classify broadband services, ie, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon Communications, as a Title II service in order to preserve the principles of network neutrality. This would give FCC the right to regulate broadband services. This re-classification was prompted by courts overturning FCC's ruling to punish Comcast for slowing down access to certain P2P networks.
• If reclassified, broadband will not be subject to all the rules that the telephony companies are. Rules will be restricted to broadband transmission.
• Content providers - Google, Amazon, & e-Bay - support FCC reclassification because it supports net neutrality principles. On the other hand, Broadband providers - AT&T, Verizon Communications, Comcast - oppose it, saying that investment in infrastructure will suffer.

My comment on this article: Nice overview of the net neutrality debate. Now that I can see both sides a little more clearly, I'm sticking with my initial response. My access to the Internet should not be at the mercy of broadband providers who want to charge extra fees to content providers who make heavy use of bandwidth. I do not want ISPs determining which sites I can visit based on monetary concerns. Their argument is that they need these fees to support the broadband infrastructure. This article offers an opposing view by saying that net neutrality will enable content providers to invest in new ways to create broadband services in order to prevent their content from being controled by the major ISPs. Interesting point.

"The FCC Steps Up to Protect Net Neutrality. But Does It Go Far Enough?" http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/05/fcc-net-neutrality/

Main argument of this article - FCC's National Broadband Plan does not do enough to ensure competition among the broadband providers. Right now, broadband ISPs have virtual monopolies. Many consumers don't have the option to switch to a different ISP. According to article, the need to create competition among broadband providers makes net neutrality less of an issue because consumers could simply switch to a different ISP in a more competitive market.

My comment on this article: Excellent point. Right now, the only broadband provider that I have available in Sandwich is Comcast. I looked into Verizon, but it's not available in my area. I have not had good experiences with Comcast: Service gets interrupted, tech support is usually ineffective, and I'm paying an exorbitant fee for a slow connection. But I have no choice. It's the only ISP provider available in my area unless I want to go back to dial-up.