What are the positions on net neutrality?

Net neutrality protects service quality for lesser-known sites

Question: What are the positions on net neutrality?
Position1 of 2›: Net neutrality is good
Argument‹3 of 4›: Net neutrality protects service quality for lesser-known sites

Without net neutrality, we would have sub-par internet service quality when visiting certain sites. If only a few well-established domains load at faster speeds, then only content from those sites is readily available. This lowers the overall quality of information and resources available on the internet.

The argument

The internet gained and maintained popularity for one key reason: It provides people with information and resources in diverse fields at a promised speed and quality. It is supposed to be the one stop-and-shop area to find anything that could perk one’s interest regardless of it being in the area of entertainment, music, personality shows, research, latest economic news, etc. However, if only certain popular websites are given the chance to be placed in “digital fast lanes” by internet providers such as Comcast or Verizon, then other more innovative or game-changing websites will never garner much attention from the public or the press. Service quality can only be protected when there are numerous competitors providing content and expressing their different points of view. In other words, when there are multiple actors using the same ISP service, the providers are unable to short change individuals due to the ability to express the grievance. Service quality is at its highest when all unique consumers can find a unique place that meets their personal needs. Having the plethora of social media platforms at our fingertips, all with comparable quality standards, is a testament to this fact. However, if net neutrality is removed, service quality would no longer be as standardized. Newer or smaller actors could experience worse quality compared to more established counterparts, in turn, diminishing their returns and consumer attention. They will never be able to successfully climb the ladder. Consumers will quickly become tired of this as the overall quality of service will significantly decline.

Premises

[P1]The internet's value rests on delivering diverse content at a consistent, promised speed and quality. [P2] Without net neutrality, ISPs can place established sites in paid fast lanes, leaving newer or smaller sites with worse quality and unable to gain an audience. [P3] Service quality is highest when many competitors can reach consumers on equal terms, which net neutrality preserves. [C] Therefore, because net neutrality protects service quality for lesser-known sites, net neutrality is good.

Counter-arguments

Net neutrality hinders service quality instead of protecting it. Given any topic of interest, there are millions, if not billions of websites and domains readily available for access at one's fingertips. For example, if one were to look up net neutrality, they would find 30,300,000 results in .43 seconds. There is an excellent chance that most, if not the majority, of these websites have flawed or incorrect information. Net neutrality is what is causing that. If websites that are more highly regarded and have a better reputation are made to load faster, then the public can be more accurately informed on matters.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The internet has never delivered uniform speed and quality. Content delivery networks, caching and paid peering arrangements already give well-resourced services faster delivery, and these operate below the layer neutrality rules address — so the baseline the premise defends does not describe how traffic actually reaches users. [Rejecting P2] Paid prioritisation and degradation are distinct, and the argument moves between them. A fast lane for some traffic need not slow anything else where capacity is adequate, and the concrete harm the position needs — throttling or blocking of competitors — is a separate practice that could be prohibited without the broader rule. [Rejecting P3] Equal terms of carriage do not produce equal reach. Discovery is determined overwhelmingly by search ranking, app stores and social platforms, none of which neutrality rules touch, so the premise's account of how small sites gain audiences leaves out the mechanisms that actually decide it. [Rejecting C] The argument is also a prediction whose test is available: the US repealed its rules in 2017, and the widely forecast tiering of consumer access did not follow in the form predicted — though the market remained under regulatory scrutiny throughout, which complicates the inference either way. (The counter on record proposes that providers should make better-regarded sites load faster so the public is more accurately informed, which would place editorial judgement about accuracy with network operators; it is a candidate for replacement.)

Proponents cited

Christopher Yoo
“You can change your mind so long as you justify it and explain why the policy has changed”
Barack Obama
“Internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website. Cable companies can't decide which online stores you should shop at or which streaming services you can use. And they can't let any company pay for priority over its competitors.”
Tim Wu
“Net neutrality is the principle that the service providers who control or access, who own the pipes, should not favor some content over another. It's, you know, an even playing field for stuff on the Internet, and, you know, I think it's very important to the medium that it have a rough quality among contents. Everyone has their shot.”
Steve Huffman
“If we don’t have net neutrality protections that enforce tenets of fairness online, you give internet service providers the ability to choose winners and losers. This is not hyperbole.”
Nicholas Economides
“...without net neutrality, the costs associated with obtaining fast internet could make things difficult, and stunt the growth of the next internet unicorn.”