My social issue argues whether net neutrality rules are needed. With the appointment of FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, he made it one of his first priority to repeal net neutrality. He argues that it discourages internet service providers (ISP) from expanding its services to impoverished parts of the country. Most people disagree with the Title II regulation net neutrality is built upon because it limits financing opportunities for smaller ISPs. I believe net neutrality rules should remain enforced. Net neutrality rules have been successful so far, so why take them away? Net neutrality has created countless opportunities for businesses to grow and expand their markets. Everyone is treated fairly and competition between creators is equal. With this, growth and innovation will continue to prosper. Internet access has reached such a high level in the past couple years that these net neutrality rules are greatly needed. Net neutrality limits the influence ISPs can have over what is provided in their services. They are not able to censor content they simply don’t like or hurts their company financially a.k.a streaming services such as Netflix. If net neutrality is repealed it will negatively influence new businesses. ISPs will be able to charge for fast lanes leaving businesses who can’t afford it in the dust. With its pros, there are some cons to net neutrality. Many argue that while net neutrality rules exist, they aren’t heavily enforced. Like everyone else, children can access any type of information online. Net neutrality doesn’t censor potentially dangerous and offensive material which leaves children in a vulnerable state.
Do you think the battle for net neutrality should continue? Does it really help internet consumers or are they just unnecessary and troublesome for the government?