Ethical Issue Surrounding FCC's Net Neutrality Controversial Proposal

Summary

In January of this year, District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, in favor of Verizon, struck down one of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) auxiliary rules that requires internet service providers to treat internet traffic equally. Now, in June, the FCC has opened its net neutrality law for review. This new amendment will allow internet service providers (ISPs) to make some internet connection stronger and faster than others. Also, it will make it legal for internet service providers to strike deals with companies that stream data while undercutting other companies who do not pay extra for smooth streaming.

At present, ISPs collect money from both data-streaming providers and consumers. Neflix and other streaming companies pay for bandwidth and high quality feeds. And, the average internet user pays for fast connection. Yet, consumers still get network issues. When you add the new FCC proposal to the present mix, it is easy to see why this proposal has people in stitches.

In short, is it ethical for internet service providers, while collecting money from both the consumers and the online streaming companies, to discriminate with their internet traffic?

Stakeholders:

Internet service providers: ISPs, like Verizon, will be the only stakeholder benefitting from this FCC amendment. Their profit margin will increase while network improvement becomes an option. You bet they will choose not to deliver quality services which both consumers and companies pay for. I mean, why should they?  

Consumers: without a doubt, consumers will suffer the most. They will be discriminated on by internet service providers.  For example, if Verizon isn't in agreement with Netflix over bandwidth, consumers of both services will suffer. Verizon customers would not be able to access Netflix without glitches or slow connection, even some already pay premium for Verizon FiOS, dishing about $110 to $174.99 every month.

Cable companies or companies who stream content: right now, Netflix and Verizon are involved in a war. Netlix switched its old loading sign to a specific one, calling out Verizon. In response, Verizon sent Netflix a cease-and-desist letter, promising legal action.

With this new proposal, data streaming companies will have to shell out more cash for quality. This cost, in turn, will be passed to customers through increased subscription fee.

Also, companies who have expensive deals with ISPs would have an unfair advantage over those who do not. This would cripple the competition in the industry. Without competition, those with expensive deals may become lax or misuse their powers. Small, independent companies are pretty much screwed.

Solution:

Rather than making a mockery of net neutrality and killing the open internet, Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, can tighten up the net neutrality law. Net neutrality was created to ban unreasonable and unjust internet traffic discrimination. Also, the new proposal could be amended to include a clause that says that ISPs must uphold their agreement with consumers and not lower internet speed below what the customer pays for. Consumers who pay premium for higher internet speed should be entitled to ISPs delivering such speed.

Abbruzzese, Jason. “FCC Advances Controversial Proposal on Net Neutrality.” Mashable.com Mashable, 14 May 2014. Web. 16 May 2014.  < http://mashable.com/2014/05/15/fcc-net-neutrality-proposal/>