The Ethics Behind Net-Neutrality

I recently came across a news worthy topic of ethical controversy from the Wall Street Journal regarding “net-neutrality” efforts among the large Internet cable companies. The article summarizes the complaints received about Comcast deliberately slowing broadband traffic and controlling the Internet. These concerns have recently prompted the FCC to become more involved and look at potentially enforcing more strict regulation. Additionally, Comcast and various other Internet giants are looking at a tier pricing plan that focuses on capacity based pricing. From my perspective, the ethic delminia seems to be twofold; Comcast is deciding who and what should be controlled and also enforcing specific pricing on what type of media/usage customer’s choice to engage in.

If the real problem here is that our universal airwaves are more congested due to the large space and downloading necessary for certain types of media such as movie and music downloads, then maybe a price increase would be justifiable. However, I believe the real issue here is that Comcast is concerned they will loose market share and customers to the ever increasing usage of Interest video/movies. This is just another move for Comcast and companies alike to maintain their monopolistic power and limiting the choices for customers. Is Comcast going to begin telling us what we can and can not watch? Or increase pricing on specific channels? This topic of conversation goes back to our class discussion regarding the broadband companies and the limitations of freedom of information. There should be ethic ramifications for Cable companies that interfere with the free flow of communication.

There seems to already be strong control over the media and their outlandish pricing, why is it necessary to put more control on what type of media is more acceptable?

References:
"Officials Step Up Net-Neutrality Efforts" Amy Schatzm Dionne Searcey and Vishesh Kumar
February 13, 2008