Final answer:
The net neutrality debate centers on whether to treat all internet data equally or to allow companies to pay for faster service delivery. Arguments for neutrality focus on avoiding discrimination and maintaining an open internet, while against it highlight the potential regulatory burden and impact on service improvements.
Step-by-step explanation:
The topic of net neutrality is highly contested in the debate over internet governance. Supporting net neutrality would ensure that all internet data is treated equally, preventing the creation of so-called "fast" and "slow" lanes that could marginalize smaller entities in favor of larger corporations capable of paying for better service. A conflict perspective theorist might argue that the absence of net neutrality could lead to a discriminatory internet landscape favoring those with more financial power.
Conversely, opponents argue that regulating internet service providers as common carriers would place an undue regulatory burden on them and could stifle their ability to be profitable, thus reducing incentives to improve and expand services. A functional perspective theorist might suggest that the ability to charge for higher speeds to data-heavy content providers is fair and necessary for the maintenance and development of internet infrastructure.
Given these arguments, if one were in charge of regulating the internet, one might lean toward maintaining net neutrality to preserve the open and egalitarian nature of the internet. However, if one were an internet service provider, there might be different business considerations that could affect their stance on net neutrality.