Matt Scinto's Blog

My original inquiry as stated in my research proposal was “what is the best way to keep the internet free and equal while satisfying the needs of companies providing the service?” When I set out to research my question, at the beginning, I thought this was an answerable question. However, I think I really thought to fast and made the issue out to be a simple one, with a simple answer; don’t restrict what people can and cannot see at any time, and make sure that there is equality spread across all service providers and customers. I set out thinking that all the major companies were completely against net neutrality, that they wanted to censor the internet and inhibit growth and innovation on the web. While my inquiry hasn’t been too affected, I realize that upon researching, my question is much harder than I thought. I’ve learned that major companies don’t so much want to restrict what people can do on the web; likewise, they still want net neutrality to exist, however they aren’t in favor of government control and regulation. So what do we do here? We have a bunch of geeks rioting silently on the web, freaking out about what the internet could turn into if net neutrality doesn’t make it’s way into law soon. They fear of harsh restrictions, start-ups failing in the arms of major corporations, monopolies, and censorship, certainly a future that no one would ever want for the internet. On the other end of the spectrum, we have major companies and service providers, such as Verizon, AT&T or Comcast, not wanting government control inhibiting what they can and cannot do, and for good reason. I certainly wouldn’t want Washington breathing down my neck every time I require a slow down of network speed in order to push telemedicine data to doctors around the country. Through my research, I’ve found that CEO’s aren’t anti-net neutrality, but rather anti-government regulation. There is a big difference that many people fail to see.

Specific gaps in my research really revolve around where I read and get my sources. Bias is a major issue with the debate on net neutrality; if I go to savetheinternet.org ( a pretty extremist site with a pretty extremist URL) I get a slew of corporation hatred. Of course you can find actually news rather than opinion, but the overall tone is pretty “call your Senators now!”. You could say even it’s a bit of fear mongering. On the other hand, bias is avoidable by visiting court cases, FCC documents, and articles that offer no real bias. Luckily I’ve found those out there. But I guess the real issue, and it is a big one, is that no one has really developed a solution that works for everyone. It’s either all or nothing, and we all know this approach never works. This is the internet; this is something that was made in America and something yes, we need to protect, but at the same time not become extremists about. The tone is so jumpy and fearful right now and I don’t think it really needs to be. I don’t want to get into a discussion here, but such extreme positions make it difficult for me to find the golden path in this debate.

In terms of original ideas, it’s really hard to say. I think for the most part I’m originally in the sense that I think I see the light a little more than the others picking sides here. I want there to be an answer that benefits everyone and doesn’t pit consumer vs provider against one another. I guess that’s my originality in a nut shell. I haven’t seen too much of this talking yet.

Thesis: With consumer and provider pitted against one another in the debate of net neutrality, it can be quick to make the judgement that there must be a winner. However, perhaps we need to take a step back and really look at the issues at hand. Then we may see that there doesn’t have to be a single winner, but rather a solution that benefits both parties.