In an msnbc article by Ryan Radia (found here), the FCC’s enforcement of Net Neutrality is criticized, citing that companies that provide other services are almost always allowed to make rules governing the use and distribution of products and services. What i thought was interesting, however, was that the author did not take into account that instead of competition and pricing working to make net neutrality, the infrastructure does not exist for this to happen everywhere in the US.  

In many places, competitors do not exist. Remote locations in America or towns where only one company has control over anyone who wants internet and can choose the price they want to charge because there are no other choices. Until the playing field gets leveled and more competition is allowed to be available, then implementation (or even discussion) of anything other than Net Neutrality, would only serve to further the inequalities that exist currently in internet service. 

The effects of regulation on the internet also has global ramifications, as it is not a service limited to or majority used by those in the United States of America. When legislation is created in the United States against the internet, it will undoubtedly have effects around the world as well. This air of freedom on the internet partially comes from the fact that everything there has to allow.  Micheal Geist writes about this topic of the internet and calling this the aura of ‘the wild west’ and stating that “Courts should exercise restraint, recognizing that less may be more. Indeed, respect for the law online may depend as much on when not to apply it as do efforts to extend the reach of courts and court orders to a global Internet community” (Geist 28). Having unnecessary restrictions on the internet is both an overreach and a money grab for the corporations pushing for such regulation.