Net neutrality (Group 2)

High stakes battle over net neutrality (The Denver Post)

Coming into the presentation in class on Thursday only knowing what I had read the night before online in the class readings, I hadn't thought too much about which side of the net neutrality debate I found myself on, and although I think there are problems with both views that need to be more closely examined, I'd be more on the side of the writer of this editorial, with their view that these companies need to be allowed to find a business model that works for them, just like any other business should be able to. Regulation is not the answer to this. Our economy functions so that the profit motive (usually) prevents something as potentially detrimental as an extensive broadband divide of sorts from happening.

I think that both sides have certain motives that are being covered by the smoke and mirrors of the framing of their side, and I think it should be interesting to watch the development of the debate closely in the coming months to see if any of these motives come to surface.

Congress must keep broadband competition alive (Lawrence Lessig)

One of my main concerns that came up following the group presentation about the framing of the net neutrality issue is also evident in the Lessig article. A lot of the argument about network providers charging fees for premium Internet to services such as YouTube doesn't seem to be based on anything beyond "what ifs". Sure, that sort of regulation could have damaging effects to the "little guy" on the Internet, and it should be addressed, but I'm not sure that the sort of regulation he is discussing would be the best vehicle for these protections.

Additionally, I guess I struggle with the comparison of net neutrality concerns to the different costs of Internet services -- from dial-up to wireless to broadband. It makes perfect sense that users of the Internet should pay more for greater speed and capabilities of their Internet surfing, and some of these options are constructed in such a way that it makes sense that it might be left in the hands of only a few companies... Just look at Charter in Madison. They practically have a monopoly on Madison cable, but do we really want five different companies running their wires all around the place? A monopoly is never the optical position for consumers, but sometimes nothing else really makes much sense.

Is knee-jerk regulation really the answer to this issue?