Social Justice or Inequality: The Heart of the Net Neutrality Debate

Author: 
Coverage Type: 

For the uninitiated, net neutrality is the principle that the companies that provide access to the Internet – Comcast, AT&T, Charter and Verizon, among others – should not be able to block, slow down, or otherwise discriminate against any particular content, application, or service. In other words, the companies providing the on-ramp to the Internet should not be able to pick winners and losers on the Internet. The founders of the Internet built this network of networks precisely so that communication would be controlled by the people at the ends of the network  – not by any person or corporation in the middle. Given the unique gatekeeping role broadband providers have, net neutrality simply codifies the founders’ intent. 

The open and decentralized nature of the Internet has created the greatest network the world has ever seen. The open Internet has provided enormous economic opportunity to millions and has transformed education, health care, e-commerce, the arts, government services, and politics. The open Internet has prevented broadband Internet access service providers from favoring some speech over others, allowing anyone with a connection to speak, uncensored, to hundreds of millions of people around the world on about just about any topic you can imagine, be it climate change, food insecurity, criminal justice reform, infrastructure, immigration, foreign affairs or reproductive rights. 

Putting the means of communication in the hands of ordinary people has been nothing short of revolutionary.

[Gigi B. Sohn is a Distinguished Fellow, Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy and Benton Senior Fellow and Public Advocate.]


Social Justice or Inequality: The Heart of the Net Neutrality Debate