Necessary Equality: An Argument for Net Neutrality

Topic: Net Neutrality

Purpose: To convince the readers that the internet is a necessity, and for that reason all Americans
should be provided with the opportunity to have equal access to it.
Audience: Readers of the New York Times. In general they are educated Americans but most
likely will not have an in depth knowledge of this particular issue or any of the technical aspects
of it.
Format: Opinion piece in the New York Times

Kyle Brown
Babich
ENGL 138T
7 April 2015
Necessary Equality: An Argument for Net Neutrality
Chances are if you have watched the news in the past month, or visited any major media
outlets home page, you have seen the words Net Neutrality appear again and again. However,
just a year ago that term was nowhere to be found, at least not in mainstream media. So where
did this debate come from? And why did it explode so quickly? The answer to both of those
questions, is the internet. You see, net neutrality is a debate about the future of the internet,
something important to everyone, which explains its rapid ascension into the spotlight. At this
point you are probably wondering what net neutrality really is, and I will get into that in a
moment, but on a very simple level, net neutrality is about equality, and as a proud American, I
support such equality.
In reality, net neutrality is much more complicated than a single word, so in order to
explain it easily, I offer an analogy. Among the utilities you pay for everyday are electricity and
cable or some other TV service. Nearly every American has these services, yet they operate in
very dissimilar fashions. Lets start with electricity. It is simple, your provider delivers
electricity to you, and you pay them a set rate per unit of energy you consume (Kilowatt hour).
After they provide you with this electricity, they have absolutely no control over it. They cannot
tell you what appliances you can and cannot use it for, and they are not allowed to offer you
discounts or any other incentives for using one brand of appliance over another. On the other
hand, cable is very different. You do not simply pay for cable and get every channel out there.

Instead you are provided with a list of options, or packages, and told how much each one costs.
You can get the sports package for X amount each month, or you can opt for the entertainment
package for Y amount each month. In doing this cable companies create a tier system, and only
allow consumers to watch certain programs if they pay more for it. So the debate is whether
internet should be treated like electricity or cable service. Proponents of Net neutrality, generally
internet consumers and internet companies, support the electricity side of the argument, where
opponents, namely internet service providers (ISPs), argue that a system similar to cable service
is the way to go (Leonhardt).
Now as a computer science major, and avid internet user my initial thoughts were to
support net neutrality, and as I dug deeper into the debate, I found that my argument remained
true. Looking back at electricity and cable service, one must try to draw a conclusion as to what
sets these two services apart, and after just a few minutes one inevitable truth comes to light.
Electricity is a necessary utility, where cable service simply is not. Now I do not mean necessary
as in you would die without electricity, but in the sense that electricity provides us with the
quality of life we have come accustomed to. Refrigerators run on electricity, stoves run on
electricity, schools and hospitals run on electricity, and without these things our lives would be
drastically changed. So what do we lose when we take away cable? Nothing really, refrigerators
still work, and schools and hospitals stay open, the only difference is now we do not get to sit on
the couch and laugh at Two and a Half Men for 2 hours. Now I am not condemning cable, but
simply making the assertion that electricity has become a necessity, where cable remains a
luxury.
It is because of this same logic that net neutrality must be passed. In todays world, the
internet is a necessity. As of 2013, 74.4% of United States households reported internet usage to

the US census bureau, which is nearly 117 Million households two years ago (File and Ryan).
Other researches have
higher internet usage
estimates, and if we look at
how usage has increased
over time we can see that it
is here to stay. The internet
has begun to play a major
role in many aspects of life,
including education.
Teachers and professors for
all age groups use online
videos and websites as visual aids in their lesson plans, and in this modern time many college
classes are offered online. Some schools even offer degree programs that are entirely online. The
internet is used in many other fields as well, such as retail. In fact many large employers only
accept online applications for new job opportunities. Even the government has started using it to
run certain welfare programs. The internet has become a large component of our lives, having
part in everything from education to employment to entertainment, and it is safe to say that
without it our lives would be drastically changed. Therefore the internet is just as important as
electricity is, and should be treated in the same manner.
Unfortunately, that is not the situation we find ourselves in. Currently ISPs have the
ability to throttle, or slow down one connection in favor of another. This means they could
potentially slow down your connection to Netflix because Netflix refused to pay off Comcast in

order to get more bandwidth. In fact, many companies currently are paying ISPs to avoid this
very situation (Downes).This is not only unfair to internet companies such as Netflix, but also to
the consumers who pay for the very internet access that they are having choked. Continuing on
this topic, if we fail to regulate ISPs, they could adopt a system identical to the cable television
system. They would be able to package certain sites together, and block access to them unless
you pay extra each month for them. This means some people would have access to more sites
simply because they are wealthier, and with the increasing role the internet is playing in
education, you can see how this is concerning. I mean, could you imagine not being able to apply
to the college you want because your family cant afford the package that contains its website?
Furthermore, blocking websites is a form of censorship, something the United States government
strongly opposes on all levels, as it is a violation of first amendment rights. This is a clear sign
that regulations need to be put into effect.
Now at this point many of you may feel that I am blowing this out of proportion, an
understandable viewpoint considering ISPs are not currently blocking sites or offering any kind
of packages. However in many ISPs you actually can see the beginning of such a system. Many
ISPs, such as Comcast, which offers services in many parts of the country, have begun offering
different levels of internet speed. Comcast is not alone in this practice. For example, where I live,
in Connecticut, if you have optimum (a cablevision company) you have two choices for
residential internet service. You can get the standard optimum online package, or you can get
optimum online ultra for five dollars more a month and double your internet speeds. This shows
us that internet providers are already beginning to offer certain better paying customers preferred
service, and if history is any indicator, this will continue until eventually we have an internet
system much like the one I described above. Decades ago everyone got the same 10 TV

channels, and that morphed into the package system we know today, so what is to stop those
same companies from doing it again with internet? For this reason I urge you to support the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its attempt to pass net neutrality regulations.
One of the biggest doubts people have about net neutrality is what its effects will be on
our internet experience. Opponents claim that by regulating ISPs they will lose profits, and
therefore will have to lay off workers and will not be able to invest as much into the growth of
the broadband sector (Bradley). The first part of this statement is inevitably true, yes if regulation
is put into effect ISPs will most likely see a loss in profits, especially in the year or two
immediately following the new regulations while the companies are adapting. However, this only
applies if the companies remain stagnant and do not expand in other areas. Doing so will make
this loss in profits manageable and possibly non-existent, and, like electric companies,
broadband providers will still be making plenty of profit in the end. It is also true that broadband
companies may choose to lay off employees in response to the decrease in profits but this too
could be easily remedied with expansion. However I do not agree with their claim that market
growth will be hurt by these regulations.
Broadband companies claim that competition in the market system will allay concerns
regarding discrimination, however the truth is that this competition simply does not exist in the
broadband market. The market is an oligopoly at best, meaning that it consists of two or three
companies in any given area, and therefore does not have much competition. It is because of this
lack of competition that the broadband industry has already grown its infrastructure in the most
profitable way. By this point broadband in the US has grown to the point where it is most
profitable for the companies, and for this reason they have little incentive to continue investing in
infrastructure and expand to less profitable regions (Bradley). Therefore by creating regulations,

we will not be hindering any growth. In fact government regulations could force broadband
providers to expand into less profitable areas that they are currently avoiding, stimulating market
growth.
Another clarification to be made regarding this notion of reduced profits, is the source of
this profit loss. Many believe that net neutrality revolves around setting internet prices, however
this is not the case. The FCC has stated repeatedly that it has no intention of doing any price
fixing, the net neutrality rules only focus on ensuring that the internet stays open for all
(Bradley). And it is because of that purpose that the benefits of net neutrality far outweigh these
downsides. In a purely economic sense, net neutrality will still be beneficial. Yes ISPs could see
a slight decrease in profits, but keeping an open web allows companies to maintain some
important investment incentives. Say for example, you have an idea for a small start-up
technology company. Well you will be much more apt to actually create this start-up if you know
you will have equal access to customers as the big companies that are already out there. These
small businesses make up a large part of our economy, and if unequal internet were to be
allowed, less and less of them would be able to make profits and help our economy. Furthermore,
we could miss out on important technological innovations a company could make that would
never have a chance with an uneven playing field. By instituting net neutrality we allow all
businesses equal access to the consumers they are trying to reach, and therefore equal
opportunity to succeed in the land of opportunity.
The debate of net neutrality is not a simple one, and with so many passionate parties
involved it is not one that will likely be over soon. However when you really take a hard look at
it, you can see that it is about equality for two different groups. The first is equality for business
owners. Net neutrality ensures that no business is favored over another. Consumers will have just

as good access to the local florists website as they do to Walmart. And the second group is
internet users, which at this point is essentially all Americans. Net neutrality will ensure that
everyone, regardless of wealth will have equal access to the vast resources of the internet. The
internet is a resource unlike anything else we have ever known, and the outcome of this debate
will largely decide its future. And as citizens of the United States of America, I believe it is our
duty to stand up for equality on all fronts, including equal internet access for all.

Works Cited
Bradley, Tony. Weighing the Economic Impact of Net Neutrality. PCWorld. 27 April 2010.
Web. 7 April 2015.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/195079/weighing_the_economic_impact_of__net_neutra
lity.html
Downes, Larry. How Netflix Poisoned the Net Neutrality Debate. Forbes. 25 November 2014.
Web. 7 April 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflixpoisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/
File, Thom and Ryan Camille. Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013. Census.
November 2014. Web. 7 April 2015.
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-28.pdf
"Internet and Media." CQ Researcher 21 July 2014. Web. 7 April 2015.
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?
id=cqr_ht_internet_and_media_2014&type=hitlist&num=1
Leonhardt, David. A Super Simple Way to Understand the Net Neutrality Debate. The New
York Times. 10 November 2014. Web. 7 April 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/a-super-simple-way-to-understand-the-netneutrality-debate.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0
Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet. The White House. 2014. Web. 7 April 2015.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality