Home Categories About
argument top image
Is net neutrality good or bad? Is net neutrality good or bad?
Net neutrality is good Net neutrality is good
Net neutrality is bad Net neutrality is bad
Net neutrality promotes the exchange of information Net neutrality promotes the exchange of information
Net neutrality promotes competition Net neutrality promotes competition
Net neutrality helps the internet grow by being a launching pad for new web services Net neutrality helps the internet grow by being a launching pad for new web services
Net neutrality protects service quality for lesser known sites Net neutrality protects service quality for lesser known sites
Net neutrality raises the cost of internet for consumers Net neutrality raises the cost of internet for consumers
Net neutrality reduces investment in infrastructure Net neutrality reduces investment in infrastructure
Net neutrality doesn’t allow for priority traffic Net neutrality doesn’t allow for priority traffic
Net neutrality reduces the quality of service by allowing low-quality sites to succeed Net neutrality reduces the quality of service by allowing low-quality sites to succeed
Net neutrality makes immoral content easily accessible Net neutrality makes immoral content easily accessible
Net Neutrality is expensive Net Neutrality is expensive
Debate Mini Map

Is net neutrality good or bad?
Back to question

Net neutrality is bad

< (2 of 2)

Net Neutrality is expensive

Legislating and enforcing net neutrality laws is expensive.
< (6 of 6)

Context

In the absence of a clear problem, a hands-off approach should be adopted in the interests of keeping costs down.

The Argument

Implementing regulation and enforcing it is expensive. Unless there is a very clear problem that needs fixing, it is always best to avoid regulation to avoid unnecessary expenditure. There is no clear problem at the moment. Therefore, it would be in the taxpayer’s interest to avoid incurring the cost of legislation and law enforcement at this stage.[1]

Counter arguments

The only reason there isn’t a problem right now is because telecommunications providers have been kept in check by the threat of net neutrality legislation. As soon as the debate is settled and net neutrality legislation is taken off the table, there will be a very real problem as telecom giants establish themselves as the gatekeepers of information and competition. Regulating in such a way that legislation is only put in place to respond to clear problems is far more expensive than taking a proactive approach. Surely preventing a future problem is preferable to waiting for the problem to occur, bringing with it all the economic and social impacts? It is also misleading to suggest that there is/was no problem before net neutrality. Before net neutrality laws were passed in the US, six internet providers were accused of degrading internet quality and services for companies, deliberately harming the business and the quality of service it could provide to its customers.

Framing

When solving problems, governments must weigh up the size of the problem with the cost of the solution. If a problem is minor, then it does not warrant an expensive solution.

Premises

[P1] Net neutrality is expensive. [P2] The problem it seeks to solve is very minor or non-existent. [P3] Therefore, the cost is not in proportion to the problem. [P4] Therefore, net neutrality is bad.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Just because it is minor now, doesn't mean it will always be minor. [Rejecting P2] The problem is not minor. It is significant.

References

  1. https://qz.com/1140466/all-the-best-arguments-for-repealing-the-federal-communication-commissions-net-neutrality-rules-proposed-by-ajit-pai/

In the Wild

This page was last edited on Friday, 6 Mar 2020 at 11:43 UTC

Explore related arguments