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 raises the cost of internet for consumers

Net neutrality limits internet providers to a user-based revenue model.
< (1 of 6) Next argument >

Context

Net neutrality forces internet providers to pursue a business model that relies on consumers for revenue, rather than businesses.

The Argument

Under net neutrality laws, internet providers have no choice but to rely on consumers for the bulk of their revenue. A business model emerges where consumers pay a fixed monthly subscription rate for their internet services, and this makes up the lion’s share of the providers' revenues. Under a different regulatory model, telecommunications companies could charge companies for the internet services used to distribute their content online. This would ease the pressure on consumers for profits and bring the household cost of internet down.[1]

Counter arguments

Just because telecom providers could explore alternate revenue models doesn't mean consumers would pay less. They would probably pay more. As internet providers expanded their products to provide tiered services, they would likely charge businesses for the highest quality services. They would also charge consumers for their monthly internet subscription. The businesses would likely pass the internet charges onto their consumers through higher products. Therefore, consumers pay more for digital products, like Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime etc. They also pay for their broadband services, thereby incurring higher monthly costs overall.

Framing

With other business models available, telecom companies might adopt one that doesn't put all the financial pressure on the user. Under net neutrality, there is no revenue model available that does not involve leveraging the internet user.

Premises

[P1] Without net neutrality, internet providers could charge businesses for the tier of internet services they provide. [P2] This would allow for alternate revenue models that do not put all the financial pressure on the consumer. [P3] Therefore, net neutrality forces the consumer to pay higher prices for their internet. [P4] Higher prices are bad. [P5] Therefore, net neutrality is bad.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] This is not guaranteed. The inverse could prove true.

References

  1. https://qz.com/1140466/all-the-best-arguments-for-repealing-the-federal-communication-commissions-net-neutrality-rules-proposed-by-ajit-pai/
This page was last edited on Friday, 6 Mar 2020 at 11:38 UTC

Explore related arguments