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 good

(1 of 2) Next position >

Net neutrality promotes competition

Net neutrality ensures a level playing field between companies operating online.
Save the Internet
< (2 of 4) Next argument >

Context

Without net neutrality, companies with more resources would gain an unfair edge on smaller startups online. This would create an uneven playing field, which is bad for competition and consumers.

The Argument

Without net neutrality, there would be nothing to stop a company like YouTube, with deep pockets, from paying telecommunications firms to ensure that their content is delivered faster than their competitors online. This would make it even more difficult for smaller players in the video hosting space to compete with giants like YouTube. Net neutrality helps ensure that smaller businesses enter a level playing field online. Their products and services are discoverable and delivered online at the same quality as existing corporations.[1] Without net neutrality, YouTube itself wouldn’t have got off the ground. When it entered the digital video hosting sector, Google Videos was the major player. If Google had been allowed to use its financial clout to pay internet providers for preferential treatment on their networks, YouTube would have been unable to compete. It was only due to net neutrality that YouTube was able to offer a comparable service and draw users to its platform.[2]

Counter arguments

Net neutrality may promote competition in some industries, but it does the opposite in the telecommunications sector. With all internet service providers forced to adopt a hands-off approach, there is no room to roll out new features and pricing models. The telecommunications industry, thanks to government interference, is among the least competitive industries. 56 million households in the US alone have no choice over their broadband service provider. [3]

Proponents

Framing

Competition is always good. Monopolies are always bad. Policies that promote competition are therefore good.

Premises

[P1] Competition is good. [P2] Net neutrality promotes competition. [P3] Therefore, net neutrality is good.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Net neutrality doesn't promote competition in every sector.

References

  1. https://www.itpro.co.uk/strategy/28115/the-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality
  2. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/331012-what-killing-net-neutrality-means-for-the-internet
  3. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/
This page was last edited on Friday, 6 Mar 2020 at 11:28 UTC

Explore related arguments