Network Neutrality Nuances Summary

In Network Neutrality Nuances, David Farber makes a contrasting counterpoint to Barbara van Schewick’s piece of net neutrality protecting us from abuse from our ISPs. Farber states that because the internet has always regulated itself over the course of its nature and is continuing to grow increasingly with no issues, we should continue to let the internet self-regulate. Thus David Farber is suggesting that the government and legislators take a reactive stance on the internet because over the course of the internet’s history it has shown to be growing exponentially. Farber continues to analyze the history of net neutrality and comes to the conclusion that any legislation that attempts to manage the internet will fail due to the incompetence of legislations regarding the internet as demonstrated by history. Farber attempts to inductively explain the pretense behind the legislations against net neutrality; however some of his examples ultimately fail to support his conclusion due to his very apparent position against legislators

Farber starts off expressing his opinion by strongly stating, “I am completely in favor of network neutrality.” (Farber 34) and then he proceeds to analytically explain how he has got to his idea by branching off his ideas to why it is unnecessary and the history behind the opposition against net neutrality. He explains because the internet is so sufficient at self-regulating there is no need for legislations to effect the internet because it is unpredictable. For example, he explains that at various points throughout the history of the internet, many botnets and viruses have spread through the net, however due to the help of many volunteers co-operating the internet has been very successful of preventing and stopping any domino