THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY

Should we end Net Neutrality?

Ending it would boost progress

It would badly hurt consumers

 Getty: Chip Somodevilla / Staff

Ending Net Neutrality would allow for new avenues of innovation and progress, argues Ajit Pai, the head of the Federal Communications Commission, in the Wall Street Journal. Before Obama introduced the rules, the internet flourished for 20 years, free of burdensome regulation. However, 80% of small wireless companies have suffered under net neutrality rules, seeing their expenses go up. Broadband network investment has gone down by over 5.6%, which is highly unusual outside of a recession. These factors have hampered development in the sector, preventing consumers from getting a better service. We must end Net Neutrality for a better internet.

Keep on reading at The Wall Street Journal

Revoking Net Neutrality would create an imbalance of power between consumers and internet service providers, asserts Klint Finley of Wired. We rely on the rules to prevent companies from accelerating people’s internet while slowing down that of others. Without Net Neutrality, they would be able to charge their customers more to use multiple devices, or even prevent them from using devices made by competitors. The Internet of Things, the way that household and day-to-day devices are able to communicate through the internet, would be severely hampered. We need Net Neutrality to keep the internet accessible to all.

Keep on reading at Wired
22.2%
Where do you stand?
77.8%
SHOW COMMENTS
Write a response...
See what else you’re missing