Annika VanSandtRed Group

Critical Thinking: Net NeutralityThe United States government should not pass a law or regulation supporting net neutrality because it stifles capitalism, innovation, and will likely increase taxes. Net neutrality is 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 (Definition of Net Neutrality). The internet was created to be a free forum of expression and open to everyone. The idea of net neutrality first became an issue around 2005, when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said broadband companies should not block or interfere with lawful internet use, unless they're doing so for "reasonable" network management purposes (Broache). The FCC then went after the popular broadband company, Comcast, in 2008. Comcast was allegedly stalling uploads to the peer-to-peer network BitTorrent. The FCC stepped in and tried to impose a set of regulations on the companys upload stalling practice. Comcast appealed the FCC sanction saying the agency did not have the authority to order them to stop. The FCC and Comcast went to Court in 2010 to settle their dispute. The Court ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to force internet service providers to keep their networks open to all forms of content, throwing into doubt the agency's status as watchdog of the Web (Kang). Although the FCC lost the case, it still continues to push for net neutrality. The chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, released a plan to the public in February of 2015. The plan takes an aggressive approach that FCC commissioner Ajit Pai describes as an act that gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the internet works (Marci.). The act will impose heavy regulations on Internet Service Providers (ISP) businesses that will make it hard for the smaller ones to compete. This will result in fewer broadband choices for Americans.In addition to the internet providers being affected, consumers will have fewer options. As the world evolves and people start to rely more heavily on the internet, the bigger the net neutrality issue becomes. Anything and everything can be done from the internet. One has the power to communicate with others across the world, shop from multiple stores, do research, and perform countless other activities with the click of a mouse. The world is changing, and it is changing quickly.Many countries already look toward the United States as a leading example for political, social, and economic guidance. When other governments see the United States impose internet regulations, they will be influenced to do the same in their country. The U.S. government will have a hard time arguing against internet regulations in other countries when it has imposed regulations of its own. The world is moving slowly towards a more fragmented internet with each country or region having its own set of rules (Miller).The United States is the torchbearer of free market capitalism. It has traditionally allowed providers of commodities and services and consumers to dictate the market. Consumers have the choice of among many ISP services to buy. Net neutrality will kill the ISP market. Under the FCCs proposed regulations, all ISPs will be forced to be so similar that they cannot distinguish themselves from one another rendering them unable to affectively compete against one another. The regulations imposed on ISPs will stifle innovation. ISPs use the money they charge companies who use their internet services to innovate and create faster internet speeds. Net neutrality would reduce the amount of money ISPs make and slow the innovation process. Net neutrality will impose a new tax burden on ISPs and further lessen the amount of money available for research and new technology. Because of the court ruling in favor of Comcast in 2010, the only way for the FCC to gain the authority to regulate ISPs is to reclassify ISPs under the Telecommunications Act. This act allows the FCC to have full control over telephone companies. The FCC wants to classify ISPs like Verizon and AT&T as telephone companies. Comcast won the court case because they were not a phone company and under the FCCs regulation. Through the Telecommunications Act, the FCC has authority to impose a broad range of taxes. The ISPs will in turn attempt to pass these costs onto the consumers. Eventually, the consumers will be left with little choice but to pay high prices for antiquated technology. The FCC will turn the internet into a public monopoly. One can find a similar situation today in the cable television service provider industry. The ISP industry and the public have debated this issue extensively. Many simply want the FFC to go away by leaving internet and broadband companies as they are. This approach allows the ISPs and the consumers to shape the market. If we leave it up to the free market the consumers, in time, receive more of what they want at a lower price (Shontell). A free market will allow companies to continue making innovation investments while satisfying the consumers. The FCC released a proposal in February 2015 that allows it allow to lump ISPs together as phone service companies to gain regulatory authority over them. ISP competition will be eliminated and taxes will skyrocket to support broadband. While these taxes might seem reasonable, it will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay (Marci). Consumers are being lead to believe that net neutrality will have a positive effect on them while the FCC is using the front of net neutrality to take control of ISPs through regulation. There are definitely some positive outcomes of net neutrality, but they become over shadowed by the government taking away the capitalistic principals that America traditionally values.Some people want an alternative to these opposing views, otherwise known as the hybrid solution, but this solution still has its faults. Just like its name suggests, the hybrid solution is a compromise of FCC ideas and anti-net neutrality ideas. The government will be allowed to regulate wholesale transactions while the retail transactions will not be regulated. The data being sent between ISPs and content providers will have stricter regulations than between ISPs and consumers. The consumers still get broadband choices while companies like Comcast cannot discriminate against content providers like BitTorrent. It allows ISPs to protect the consumers. This solution will allow the FCC to install restrictions on discrimination among internet traffic and still provide some allowance for unique delivery arrangements for specialized services (Wyatt). The hybrid solution appears to offer a balanced amount of net neutrality, but even the smallest amount of net neutrality implemented will prove costly for the United States. Giving the government power to regulate wholesale transactions will allow the FCC to gain more control down the line. The FCC can choose which retailers to sell certain ISPs to. This can lead to corruption and possibly even more discrimination. If the FCC is in charge of whom the ISPs can sell to, room for innovation will still be stifled. ISPs will only make a set amount of money determined by the FCC, which will prevent the ISPs from making the proper economic gains to invest in creating new technology. The FCC will also need to manage these ISPs, so they will turn to the citizens of the Untied States and demand taxes to fund themselves. Any money the consumers would save from the non-discrimination policy that requires ISPs to charge the same amount of money to all users will be lost when the same consumers have to pay taxes. There is not strong enough reasoning to pass a law giving the FCC even the smallest amount of control of ISPs. Giving them any amount of power over these companies can lead to an innovation slump and a loss of money for ISPs and consumers. The United States should not pass a law in complete support of net neutrality to prevent the FCC from taking control and ending the capitalism that the United States has tried so hard to maintain.Work Cited:

"Definition of Net Neutrality."Net Work Neutrality. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar.2015. .

Broache, Anna. "Comcast vs. BitTorrent to be Focus of FCC Hearing."Cnet. CBSInteractive, 22 Feb. 2008. Web. 31 Mar. 2015.

Kang, Cecilia. "Court Rules for Comcast Over FCC in 'Net neutrality' Case."Washington Post. Washington Post Company, 7 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Mar.2015. .

Marci, Giuseppe."Republican FCC Commissioner Slams Obamas 332-Page Plan ToRegulate The Internet."The Daily Caller. Daily Caller, 6 Feb. 2015. Web.31 Mar. 2015. .

Miller, Michael J. "The FCC on Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You Wish For."PCMAG: Forward Thinking. Ziff Davis, 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 31 Mar. 2015..

Shontell, Alyson. "'Net Neutrality' For Dummies."Business Insider. BusinessInsider, 15 Jan. 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2015..

Wyatt, Edward. "F.C.C. Considering Hybrid Regulatory Approach to NetNeutrality."The New York Times. New York Times Company, 15 May 2014. Web.31 Mar. 2015. .

Annotated Bibliography:

Broache, Anna. "Comcast vs. BitTorrent to be Focus of FCC Hearing."Cnet. CBSInteractive, 22 Feb. 2008. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. .Discusses court case between Comcast and BitTorrent.

Cains, James T. "Understanding Net Neutrality."For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons,n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2015. . Explains the arguments for andagainst net neutrality. Talks about where net neutrality stands now.

Consumer Communication Services (CCS). N.p.: Stratecast, n.d. Print. Vol. 4 ofNet Neutrality: Impact on the Consumer and Economic Growth. Explainswhat net neutrality is, what it does and how it affects people.

"Definition of Net Neutrality."Net Work Neutrality. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar.2015. .Defines net neutrality.

Kang, Cecilia. "Court Rules for Comcast Over FCC in 'Net neutrality' Case."Washington Post. Washington Post Company, 7 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Mar.2015. . Explains the court case between the FCC andComcast.

Marci, Giuseppe. "FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Finally Reveals His Net NeutralityPlan."The Daily Caller. Daily Caller, 4 Feb. 2015. Web. 31 Mar. 2015..Explains Tom Wheeler's (chairman of FCC) decision to forward netneutrality.

- - -. "Republican FCC Commissioner Slams Obamas 332-Page Plan ToRegulate The Internet."The Daily Caller. Daily Caller, 6 Feb. 2015. Web.31 Mar. 2015. .Ajit Pai (a republican FCC commissioner) explains his disliking of TomWheeler's newly proposed net neutrality plan.

Miller, Michael J. "The FCC on Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You Wish For."PCMAG: Forward Thinking. Ziff Davis, 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 31 Mar. 2015..Discusses the FCC's decision to regulate Internet providers as commoncarriers.

Oestreich, Marc. "The Real Cost of Network Neutrality."The Heartland Institute.N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. . Lists cons of netneutrality with links to articles that explain each con in depth.

Salway, David. "What Is Net Neutrality?"About.com: About Tech. About.com, n.d.Web. 30 Mar. 2015. Discusses the pros and cons of net neutrality.

Shontell, Alyson. "'Net Neutrality' For Dummies."Business Insider. BusinessInsider, 15 Jan. 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.. Explains whatnet neutrality is and discusses both sides of the argument. Analyzeshow the net neutrality debate will affect different people.

Steimie, Joshua. "Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality?"Forbes. N.p., 14May 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2015. . This articlelists some of the cons of net neutrality. Includes the negativeimpact on competition, privacy and freedom and provides a possiblesolution.

Taylor, Mark. "Observations of an Internet Middleman."level 3 communicaions.N.p., 5 May 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. . Explains, in depth, thebasics of internet service and its providers.

Wyatt, Edward. "F.C.C. Considering Hybrid Regulatory Approach to NetNeutrality."The New York Times. New York Times Company, 15 May 2014. Web.31 Mar. 2015. .Explains the new "hybrid solution" for net neutrality.

5