Freedom and Information for All: An Argument for Net Neutrality

By Zach Skubic

WRI 111: Writing Seminar

To read student-editor Carolina Conway’s comments on the writing moves found in this essay, click on or hover over the footnotes within the text.

The internet has become a staple of everyday life in the developed world. Between online banking, social media, collaborative documents, online shopping, and so much more, the internet dominates the lives of digital citizens around the globe. In its current state, the internet exists as an open, universal network. Information flows freely without obstruction, individuals can access almost any website without restriction (at least, in democratic countries), and innovative businesses compete fiercely for consumers’ attention in markets on the cutting edge of tech. In short, everyone with internet service has equal access to its content and capabilities. This neutral treatment of content, dubbed ‘net neutrality,’ is arguably one of the core reasons why the net has become so successful and widely adopted throughout society. However, due to recent regulatory rollbacks of neutrality standards by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the free and fair network we love and depend on is under attack. To promote healthy competition, protect future growth of disruptive online businesses, and retain equal access to the information of a standardized internet, states should introduce legislation that defends net neutrality and overrules the FCCs dangerous deregulation. ¹

Before we dive into the importance of its protection, we must first have a solid foundation of what net neutrality is. In his famed 2003 essay “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination,” Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School, defines net neutrality as a network design principle where a network that provides the most benefit to its users aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally (Wu 148). Essentially, this means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs – think Comcast or Verizon) should treat all content flowing in their networks blindly and equally.² They should not be concerned from which website the content in transit originated, nor should they be concerned with which user receives it. Instead, ISPs act as mere middlemen who provide and maintain the network and its infrastructure without deliberately interfering in its transmissions. This long-standing practice of treating content equally has allowed individuals to access swaths of information with ease and encouraged competition among online businesses and content providers. And it is this very practice which the FCC and large ISPs eliminated for the sake of corporate profit.

In a world without net neutrality, future organic growth of new, innovative internet companies is put at severe risk.³ This risk is primarily due to increased barriers to market entry, such as exclusivity agreements and content delivery contracts between content providers and ISPs, all of which make it more expensive to start a web-based business. Without net neutrality protections in place, ISPs can charge the companies that own websites for access to their network (which contains potential customers) by forming content delivery contracts or “termination” contracts. [1] For established companies that already have a presence in the market and large amounts of money to throw around, this might not be an issue. However, for new start-up companies, it is a big one. Let’s look at video streaming as an example.⁴

Today, Netflix is a massive player in the video streaming world, a multi-billion-dollar corporation with millions of subscribers worldwide. Hypothetically, if Comcast (an American ISP) decides to charge Netflix a substantial amount (let’s say, $25 million) to deliver content across its network, Netflix would almost certainly bite the bullet and pay the cost. After all, they have tens of millions of subscribers paying for their content, so it’s easy for them to justify because the profit from Comcast users outweighs the cost of the contract. However, let’s say a new company, InternetMovies, wants to compete with Netflix. InternetMovies might offer an enhanced user experience or different programming than Netflix, but, as a start-up company, they simply cannot afford the $25 million cost of access fees in that industry. As a result, they decide not to go into business, and a potentially game-changing idea bites the dust. ⁵

Considering the massive amount of capital flowing towards startups, this might sound like an unrealistic scenario. However, the economic principles behind it make sense.⁶ In a 2009 journal article on net neutrality and business development, NYU Economist Robin Lee and the aforementioned Tim Wu came to a similar intuitive conclusion. They realized, “since returns to content production are skewed and the expected value of a new online venture is low, sufficiently low costs of entry may have been and may continue to be crucial [for startup companies’ success]” (Lee 67). New ventures try to enter the market all the time. However, if potential web-based companies are under the impression that they will not be able to reach end-users without paying for expensive access fees upfront, they might give up on the idea rather than pursue it because of the high cost of entry to the market. When the FCC eliminated protections for net neutrality, it placed entrepreneurs on the firing line by exposing them to these exorbitant, unnecessary costs that only serve to bolster ISPs’ bottom lines. By restoring net neutrality protections, we can ensure that American entrepreneurship and digital innovation will continue thriving for generations to come.⁷

Just as it is important to reduce barriers to entry so new businesses can enter the marketplace with innovative solutions, it is just as essential that existing businesses can continue their work without fear of being cut off by ISPs. The FCC’s deregulation of net neutrality could, hypothetically, allow ISPs to completely block off companies from their network without any valid reason. In fact, ISPs could even do it to eliminate competition and drive customers to their own competing products. Allow me to present another example.⁸

Google Fiber is an ISP. Google Fiber also provides TV service through Google’s YouTubeTV platform, as well as other media through the company’s video site, Youtube (Johnston). Hulu is also a content provider who produces media and provides similar TV content through its platform. However, Hulu relies on Google Fiber to provide its content to consumers through its network. Google Fiber could, theoretically, prevent users of its network from accessing Hulu content that competes with its own– or even stop providing access to Hulu altogether. While this might upset some people and cause them to leave Google Fiber for another provider, many people would just cancel their Hulu subscription to avoid the hassle of canceling their internet service. Instead, they’d watch Google Fiber’s content as a substitute. Sounds crazy, right?!⁹

This situation is not only awful for internet-reliant companies because it leaves them at the mercy of ISPs, but it also potentially restricts consumers from accessing the content they desire. It doesn’t benefit anyone except for the ISPs who profit off the poached customers. And as shady as this scenario may sound, there exist no provisions in current rules preventing such behavior. Even academics agree — there is substantial risk for abuse of market power.¹⁰ In an essay on net neutrality and content delivery, Shane Greenstein, a Harvard Business School Professor of Business Administration, argues that “without [Net] Neutrality rules, ISPs may favor their own services and use price and possibly nonprice instruments to reduce competition” (Greenstein 145). The rollback of net neutrality rules has severely exposed internet content providers while providing minimal benefits for consumers. It could lead to further market consolidation and monopolization of a select few ISPs, stifling innovation and dramatically reducing the options available to consumers in the long term. Hence, we see why it is critical that net neutrality protections are re-imposed and that a free and open internet is protected through strong legislation.

Even though the argument for bringing back net neutrality remains strong, it should be noted that there is a potential benefit to consumers under deregulation. If massive consolidation efforts were to take place across industries, where ISPs buy content providers (or put them out of business), the ISPs would become vertically integrated businesses (Greenstein 145). For our purposes, this means that they not only control the means of distribution, but also most of the content being produced and distributed. Economically speaking, this could prove more efficient and has the potential to pass on cost savings to consumers. In fact, some media and telecommunications conglomerates are already pursuing this integration strategy. While I admit that this could be a potential benefit, I maintain that the long-term lack of healthy competition in the marketplace, as well as the potential shortage of diverse content providers, outweighs the benefits of potential cost savings.¹¹To put it another way, I assume that most people would rather pay a couple bucks more per month for the ability to access any media or service they want than sacrifice all freedom of choice over their content and internet providers.

Net neutrality serves as a set of guidelines to help ISPs determine how to handle internet traffic and content. For decades, these guidelines and ideals have been used to promote fair competition among internet companies while providing their customers with equal access to content. They have created prosperity through new corporate value opportunities, and they have provided billions of people with unprecedented access to information. The FCC has dismantled these rules, and the duty now falls on local activists and state legislators to pick up the pieces and introduce legislation that protects net neutrality. The first shots have been fired, and corporate America is winning the war. It’s up to us to fight back for our internet freedoms once and for all, or risk losing them forever.¹²

These contracts are dubbed “termination” contracts because the ISP is considered the last point on the network before a website’s content is delivered to the user; hence, it is the point where the connection ‘terminates’ because it doesn’t travel further. It is very similar to old practices used by phone companies like Bell, where the owner of the final switchboard used while making a call would receive a fee for connecting a user to the person calling. This practice has since been regulated heavily and outlawed because it created “termination monopolies” through charging absurd fees (Lee 63). ¹³

Works Cited

Greenstein, Shane, et al. “Net Neutrality: A Fast Lane to Understanding the Trade-Offs.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 30, no. 2, 2016, pp. 127–150. AEA Web, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.2.127.

Johnston, Matthew. “5 Companies Owned by Alphabet.” Investopedia, Dotdash, 6 Apr. 2020, www.investopedia.com/investing/companies-owned-by-google/.

Lee, Robin S, and Tim Wu. “Subsidizing Creativity through Network Design: Zero-Pricing and Net Neutrality.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 23, no. 3, 2009, pp. 61–76., https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.23.3.61.

Wu, Tim. “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination.” Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, vol. 2, 5 June 2003, pp. 141–153. SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863.

A Word from Zach

Growing up in an entrepreneurial household, there are a few core lessons that have always stuck with me: Work hard, be honest (and kind), take advantage of good opportunities when they pop up, and never be afraid to fight for something you believe in.

Since I was a kid, I’ve been fascinated with the intersection of technology and business. I am incredibly fortunate to have had countless opportunities to explore these passions in-depth. I grew up voiding warranties left and right, taking apart old computers, phones, and other gadgets, and putting them back together to understand how each component worked. Most of the time, I’d get all of the screws back where they belonged…

I spent thousands of hours throughout middle and high school researching different technologies, ranging from cryptocurrencies to 3D printing to network engineering to graphics cards – and everything in between – searching for my next rabbit hole to explore. I’ve learned a lot over the years, starting my own businesses and working with friends from around the country on unique projects. The thing that enabled it all? The internet.

Having instant, unfiltered access to online articles, how-to guides, and educational videos helped me discover countless technological passions. This same access has given billions of people around the world the ability to develop new skills, uncover new interests, and express themselves. Growing up with the internet changed my life for the better – and that’s why I am so concerned it is under attack.

Without proper net neutrality protections, the learning opportunities I had could become hidden behind paywalls as a luxury lost to the past. Budding developers, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, hackers, historians, teachers, tradespeople… could have their dreams extinguished because they lack access to the critical resources they need to learn, grow, and share ideas.

And if you’re thinking, “Zach, what are you talking about? Nobody would let the internet get to that point!” I hope you’re right. But do you really want to sit on the sidelines while companies spend millions of dollars lobbying against policies that could protect the next generation of internet innovators? I certainly don’t. The internet has been a special place to learn new ideas, develop unique relationships, and innovate without restriction, and I want it to stay that way. The stakes are too high to remain silent.

From Professor Anne Boyle

Commentary

I submitted Zach Skubic’s argument paper to Writing Moves because the sophisticated rhetorical moves he makes in his paper can serve as a model for both students and professors. From the very start of his essay, Zach addresses his readers and assures them that he will lay out his argument in clear ways and allow us to evaluate both facts and perspectives. Zach provides guideposts to lead his readers: “Before we dive into the importance of its protection, we must first have a solid foundation of what Net Neutrality is.” His credibility is bolstered by his excellent research, his honesty, and his tone. He uses appositives gracefully to signal the authority of his sources. He admits that those who take a different point of view are justified. His tone is often formal, yet personable. After finishing the essay, readers feel informed, but never bullied. While he makes a compelling argument, he wants his readers to know that he values their perceptions and judgements.

Assignment

Argumentative Essay

Your third assignment allows you to build on the work you have already accomplished in this course. You have already shown that you can rhetorically analyze complicated texts. You understand that writers have a certain exigence as they write; you know how they use evidence, how they construct their own ethos through words, how they work to persuade you through logic and emotional appeal.

Using at least 3 sources, you will demonstrate that you can write a balanced, clear, and cogent argumentative essay. The length should be 4 ½-6 pages. You may choose your topic, but you should recognize the need to hone in on a manageable topic. I encourage you to shy away from topics that are too general and embrace an issue where you can clearly see that intelligent people may disagree. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate your ability to research a topic of interest, put sources in conversation (“forward and counter”), construct an annotated bibliography, and “take an approach” of your own.

Steps to consider:

If you are using 3 sources, you will need to read many more to make certain that you have the best sources given your time constraint, so get researching!
Your first step, which we will workshop in class, is to narrow your topic or field of exploration. As archeologist’s know, the narrower the field, the deeper you can dig.
In this paper, you are not trying to win a debate. Think of your thesis as a critical question that you will investigate in your paper. Once you narrow down your topic to a thesis and pose your critical question, you need to show your reader that there is no easy answer to this question, that the most you can do is interrogate a variety of claims and come up with the claim you think has validity.
We all have biases, but you need to investigate or interrogate your own biases or you will not find the distance that will allow you to read your sources critically and analyze them rhetorically. Your objective is to persuade readers that you have a valid point of view.
“Come to terms” with your source materials as you read them with a rhetorically-aware eye.

As you read your sources, create an annotated bibliography that contains the correct bibliographical citation followed by 1 to 3 concise sentences that describe the author’s claim and the approach used by the author.

Editor Comments

1
Zach’s introduction, followed by a clear argumentative thesis, gives the reader a solid foundation on which to understand a complex topic.
2
The inclusion of an outside resource followed by Zach’s explanation in his own words helps Zach to establish his authority on the topic.
3
The positive connotations of “new” and “innovative” make the reader more sympathetic with Zach’s argument.
4
Metadiscourse like “let’s” draws the reader in and makes them feel like the essay is guiding them along a path to understanding.
5
This hypothetical example helps the reader to imagine how the absence of net neutrality affects recognizable companies.
6
Zach transitions into an economic argument to add another dimension to the reader’s understanding.
7
This sentence restores hope for a brighter future of small companies.
8
A second example of metadiscourse helps Zach to explain dense concepts and demonstrate his own thorough understanding.
9
Exclamatory punctuation and directly addressing the reader gives the essay a conversational tone.
10
Zach inserts his own opinions while providing academic evidence.
11
Zach strengthens his argument by addressing a potential counter-claim.
12
Zach gives the essay a strong finish with bold language and a call to action.
13
The footnotes allow for more explanation of terms that are not widely known without weighing down the body of the essay.