Net neutrality (boiled down)

To those of us with our eyes and ears tuned toward the tech world, a leading topic of conversation for the latest times, and mostly since Trump assumed the presidency, has been the ongoing fight by some to maintain and uphold the current net neutrality laws, and the efforts by others to disrupt, repeal and destroy these laws.

The topic is beaten, but I notice most people don’t have the nuts and bolts down, so I’ll try to summarize the big picture in this article, leaving any further action you might want to take on your part.

For the layman, net neutrality is, as explained by our good friend Wikipedia: “the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.” In case you didn’t get it, let me draw out a simple scenario to help it sink in.

Internet Service Provider 1 (ISP 1) provides you with an Internet connection with great upload and download speed, perfect stability, all you could want. As you’re cruising through the net, you happen upon a site/service that sponsors ISP B, a rival competitor of ISP A. Lets say it’s an online game.

With net neutrality, regardless of any relationship with competitors, ISP A would have to give you the same connection it gave to any other online site or service.

Without net neutrality, it can do whatever it wants. And since it doesn’t want you to support people that support their competitor, they bring the connection down. As you play with 567 ms, you get the most tilting lag possible, and your team flames you for not playing right. Sound fair?

The issue, of course, is not as simple as I explained it to you now. The current raging debates discuss everything from the role of a government in the providing of services, to the effects of competitive entrepreneurship in an economy. I will not approach these points in depth, both because I’m not the best person to do so, and because they do not fully pertain to what I set out to do. I will explain to you the position of those against this principle.

Mostly, they hinge on government interference. For most laws to work, they need to be enforced. The government is what handles the enforcement of this law, making sure the ISPs and telecoms remain honest throughout. This induces rage from those against net neutrality, with reasons raging from a mild skepticism that the government (already known to be very slow) can enforce the law effectively without wasting the taxpayer’s money, to outright refusal against allowing the government to have such power over the lives of civilians (Big Brother is always the rallying cry for these people).

A free market, where companies can establish their own policies, would promote competition between companies, increasing the quality of services provided, theoretically. The government, supposedly, has had a light touch in these matters so far, and the results haven’t been disastrous. But are these arguments enough?

I made this article solely with the intent to round up the info and let you, the reader, know of the basics of the situation, inn case you didnt alread. It’s now up to you to do more research and decide which side you’re on. But by all means, take the side, do so quickly, and think about what impact the coming laws might have on your life. Without a neutral Internet, would you even be reading this article?