1. Moral Concern–Appension of Access to Humanity’s Collectivism

It seems this is the detail most people are likely to understand at a base level, and one they agree strongly with. The internet, most people agree, is the great human connector–the digital superhighway system that connects the world. Suggesting that it is a corporate right to append someone’s access because of what they want to access is affrontive to even the most plain browsers of the internet. Research here may simply look into public perceptions regarding the issue, and from what little I’ve gathered thus far, it seems mostly in-line with the above.

2. Maintenance of a Competition-free Service

One of the core claims at the heart of the movement to repeal Net Neutrality is the desire for the internet to become a corporate competition ground, turning the internet into a capitalistic market instead of what it is–the collective sum of human nexuses. Proponents for the repeal of Net Neutrality want it gone so that innovation and incentivization can occur, but in all likelihood the opening of the internet to corporate interest will stifle competition in lieu of satisfying investors. Research here should focus on ComCast and Netflix debacle, and the other public interest issues of note in Net Neutrality.

3. Constitutionality and the Rights of Speech and Assembly

One of the worst possible outcomes one can consider when it comes to the removal of Net Neutrality is the stifling of ability to create, publish, or communicate. At its core, such appensions and firm corporate hands looking to intermediate in the public’s and individual’s access to the internet can violate the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly (and possibly of the press), all protected under the Constitution. Research here should be done into court cases and other precedents, i.e. Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), which has to do with internet throttling and access management for convicted felons.

4. Power in the Hands of the Consumer(s)

Perhaps a more emotionally charged point. The power to determine what you view and access within the public content supersystem (the internet) is for you to decide. Parents and teachers instruct their children and pupils about safe internet usage, so why should internet provision companies have any sort of say in the browsing habits of its consumers? Instead of choosing channels on the television, why not consume what you want, when you want, without having to bend at the waist for channel packages, app deals, and bundles and bundles of services? Research into projected changes following the supposed corporatization of internet access.

5. Reduction in the Capacity for Propagandization

Another worry about internet companies and large corporate interests and investing agencies controlling your access to the internet is the stifling of counterculture, of dissent and productive disagreement. Companies may throttle, select against, or remove your access to competitors or people, groups, companies, or organizations which do not agree with them or who provide no financial incentive for them. At the worst end, this is propagandization, and even minorly this goes against the spirit of a free country, where the capacity of counterculture and dissent is promoted (see above–Constitutionality). Research Chinese internet systems to demonstrate the internet as a propaganda machine.

6. Lobbyism and D.C.

Maintaining the gap between the interests of the internet and the interests of DC Lobbyists seems to be in the general interests of those who wish to reinstate Net Neutrality. The internet used not to be connected to DC until recently, when monied individuals and companies began sending voices to rally change at the governmental level, with incentives and more behind the scenes motivating these changes. Research should go into lobbyists for FCC and Net Neutrality, when they became prominent, etc. and should be used to prove that company decisions and governmental involvement are interconnected.

7. Remove the Need to Maintain Interest

The question remains– Net Neutrality was repealed almost half a decade ago, so why have these things not yet come to pass? The reason is things like this, this very paper you are reading. Nothing bad has happened as of yet because the public eye is still attentive. When it comes to pass that companies think they can sneak in throttling and data discrimination without the public’s notice or backlash, then the floodgates are open. And for a cause which claims to be in the interest of promoting innovation and freeing the public from an attention sink, the desires of internet providers in keeping Net Neutrality low has kept our attention more–and must, until any sort of resolution occurs. Research into state-level legislation for FCC and federal level cases should demonstrate more of why these problems do not exist, and should reveal examples of loopholes which have not yet come to pass but can.