Net Neutrality is currently a huge point of contention in the United States. What is the issue and why do people disagree? A philosopher’s job is to understand the perspective of others to the best of her ability. For that reason, we are very excited to present a new series at thephilosurfer.com: The Philosurfer’s World, a look at current events from a philosopher’s perspective. I have three videos relating to Net Neutrality. In the first, I explain the issue as objectively as I can, and then I explain the philosophical perspective undergirding  both sides of the issue so that we can better understand the reasons they give for their positions. In the next two videos, I consider some of the more important arguments for and against Net Neutrality respectively. Finally, on this post I have collected all the arguments, objections, and responses I have discovered. You can review them to see what you think and comment here if I missed anything so I can update this blog post. With your help, we will have a comprehensive view of the issue and will be better equipped to decide what we think about Net Neutrality.

KEY

A1 = Argument 1 (i.e., “reason to believe this”)

O1 = Objection 1 (i.e., “reason to doubt this”)

S1 = Support 1

R1 = Response 1

Arguments for these Net Neutrality rules

• A1: without these regulations, ISPs are able to slow or block access to certain websites, which restricts free speech
  • O1: the same is true for television and radio: we don’t force television stations to provide a platform for every view
    • R1: most websites are different than airtime because the competition for bandwidth (for non-streaming websites) is much smaller than for airtime
  • O2: if an ISP blocked or slowed access to websites for speech reasons, people would stop using that ISP and they would lose money, so they wouldn’t do so
    • R1: most people don’t have much choice of ISPs, so ISPs wouldn’t lose any business
    • R2: they could do so without us knowing
      • O1: it is the FTC’s job to protect us from that
    • R3: some ISPs own some content providers, so it might be worth it for them to slow other content provides
      • S1: Apple blocks us from some apps so we are forced to use their apps, yet we still buy iPhones
  • O3: the government could do the same if we give them power over the internet
  • O4: restricting free speech is illegal for other reasons
• A2: it’s not fair that people that people that can afford it can buy faster internetI.e., this would make a “fast lane for the rich,” which isn’t fair
  • O1: this could be a benefit for poor people
    • S1: I could pay less if I don’t stream
    • S2: if it’s worth it to me, I could pay more and have my internet even faster
    • R1: more likely that ISPs will slow down internet for those who can’t afford it
      • Remember: people that hold this position distrust big business
  • O2: this is totally fair, it’s just not something people like
  • O3: content providers do this too
    • S1: Facebook and Instagram are always asking for money to boost the posts of commercial pages
• A3: removing Net Neutrality rules makes an uncompetitive environment for small businesses
  • S1: big businesses can partner with ISPs; competing small businesses can get slower connection so that people will be much less likely to wait around for their pages to load
  • O1: this is an FTC problem
  • O2: this is a problem in every industry
    • S1: Walmart has pushed out small businesses throughout the United States employing similar tactics
• A4: removing Net Neutrality rules makes an uncompetitive environment amongst ISPs
  • S1: ISPs can partner with or purchase content providers and have exclusive rights to them
    • I.e., you may have to go through Verizon to use Facebook
  • O1: the problem isn’t these rules, but the fact that local governments require kickbacks for infrastructure, which makes it impossible for small ISPs to survive
    • S1: Google fiber thrived in cities that didn’t demand kickbacks
    • R1: this may be an additional problem, but it doesn’t prove that removing Net Neutrality rules isn’t also a factor
• A5: the internet is so important should be a considered a public utility
  • O1: we don’t get many technological advances in public utility because there is no incentive for it; treating ISPs like that would result in the same stagnation
• A6: Chairman Pai pushed this through because he is really working with Verizon
  • O1: genetic fallacy
• A7: dictating what information we have access to is fascism
  • O1: ISPs aren’t government, so they can’t be fascist
  • O2: argument by popular appeal

Arguments against these Net Neutrality rules

• A1: these are unnecessary rules because there was no problem with the internet before they were created
  • I.e., this is a “solution in search of a problem”
  • O1: these are meant to be proactive rules
    • R1: there is no way to tell how this technology will change, so there is no way to tell what kinds of rules we should adopt
      • O1: we can make wiser choices, even if they aren’t perfect
• A2: stifles innovation
  • S1: there is no incentive for ISPs to improve because they will have to make the same one-size-fits-all plans
    • S1: maybe there is some super-fast, incredibly cheap way of providing service to individual consumers, but ISPs won’t try to discover it if it doesn’t benefit them at all
• A3: other factors slow down streaming services, so there will never be exactly equal service anyway
  • O1: doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it as equal as possible
  • O2: there are unjust ways of things being unequal
    • S1: say two people want to play basketball; they are unequal in height and unequal in economic status; it would be okay for the NBA to discriminate for the former but not the latter reason
• A4: this is the jurisdiction of the FTC or congress, not the FCC
  • S1: the FCC gets its powers from Federal Communications Act, but this doesn’t mention the power to tell ISPs how they can distribute content
    • O1 (FCC): indirect authority- Congress’s instructions in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which requires the commission to promote broadband deployment and adoption across the country, so the FCC should make sure it’s not restricted in any way
  • O1: the FTC can’t make rules
    • R1: they can, but rarely do
  • O2: the FTC is meant to be reactive not proactive, but this doesn’t protect consumers
    • R1: part of their mission is to prevent anticompetitive practices
  • O3: as a matter of practice, the FTC doesn’t step in unless consumers have been deceived
    • R1: this means the FTC should be improved
      • O1: until we do so, we need the rules in place, and the FCC has done the job
• A5: President Obama forced the FCC to implement these regulations b/c he couldn’t get the laws passed
  • O1: internal documents show that’s not true
  • O2: genetic fallacy
• A6: these rules are socialism
  • O1: they are no more socialist than public utilities
  • O2: argument by popular appeal