The Web neutrality is the idea that the companies that own the broadband pipes should not be allowed to reduce competitors broadband speed or to increase their own.
The debate is to know wether it’s better or not to permete to Internet consumers to access more easily one content than another.
In one hand, advocates of network neutrality claim that large telecommunications providers are attempting to unfairly profit from their investment in residential networks:
« These companies want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all »..."tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data."..."to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video —while slowing down or blocking their competitors"..."to reserve express lanes for their own content and services.
In the other hand, opponents of network neutrality regulations claim they would discourage investment in broadband networks:
"Sweeping and rigid net neutrality legislation could: hinder public safety and homeland security; complicate protecting Americans privacy; erode the quality and responsiveness of the Internet; limit consumers' competitive choices; and discourage investment in broadband deployment to all Americans."
It’s true that from companies point of view, the law of the strongest has always reigned on the market. But if we put ourselves next to consumer, Internet which is now a daily tool does not allow an easier access to a brand than another.
So, web neutrality is unfair or not ?
A very funny way to defend web neutrality by We are the Web :
