The Argument for Net Neutrality - Literature review Example

? The argument for net neutrality The arguments for net neutrality Net (or network) neutrality is the principle that any content sent over a network should be treated equally by the network. On a neutral net, the speed with which an end-user can access any given content is based on the capacity of that user’s Internet connection and not on any favorable or unfavorable treatment of the content by the ISP (Greyson, 2010, p.57) Collins,(2010) has pointed out that “Net neutrality is neither asking Internet for free, nor saying that one shouldn’t pay more money for high quality of service” (Collins,2010, p.61); it is all about ensuring uniformity over internet services. The Internet is the largest publicly accessible network in the world. Connecting to this network is done through service providers called Internet Service Providers, or ISPs. Providers typically provide multiple tiered connection schemes which give a user the ability to take in and send out more information at the same time. This method can be seen just as the current method of obtaining water from the utility company. The flow information, or data, can be seen as the flow water to a home. From that point the amount of water coming into a home can be increased by purchasing a larger inlet pipe from the provider. This is the same concept with Internet service providers. Once the water reaches a home it can be distributed and used around the home as much as needed up to the max flow that the pipes allow. This same concept is the same with the Internet. Information flow comes in to the home and distributed to devices until the “pipe” is full. Internet service providers now want to not only charge for the pipe coming into the home but also split up the types information within the flow into tiered charges as well. This is where the idea of net neutrality comes into play. Net neutrality states that the flow from the pipe is a stream of data just like the water is from the water company and should not be filtered to charge for certain types of data coming through. The Internet is a flow of information and should not be restricted based on the types of information coming through the pipes. Problems in the absence of neutral net services The issue of net neutrality received widespread media attention when some broadband service providers (BSPs) such as Verizon, Comcast, and AT &T proposed to charge popular online Web sites for priority delivery of the latter’s content to their residential and commercial customers. The proposal encountered stiff resistance from those who were supposed to be charged, and thus erstwhile competitors such as Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft were soon lobbying before the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that would prevent the BSPs from carrying out their proposed plan and thereby maintain what was termed the “neutrality” of the Internet (Guo, et al, 2010, p.244) Commercialization is intruding virtually in every segments of human life and internet is also not an exception. When internet was introduced, people visualized or welcomed it as an ocean of free or unpaid knowledge. However, business people quickly realized the huge business potential of internet and quickly started their efforts to transform internet from a free service to a paid service. Many internet service providers in America like Verizon, Comcast, and AT &T, started to restrict their free internet services one way or other which resulted in the creation of the topic; net neutrality. Enforcing fees for using some kind of network services is just like restricting the natural right of people to get drinking water. Knowledge is a property which cannot be restricted or used for commercial purposes. It should be remembered that what would have happened, had our ancestors try to hide their knowledge instead of distributing it freely to the future generation. What would have happened if the inventor of electricity asked for patents or fees for his discovery? Knowledge, technological advancements, discoveries and inventions should be used for the wellbeing of the future generation rather than trying to block it for commercial purposes. It should be noted that if one internet service provider enforce some fees for using some particular service, other service providers will also follow the same path. Thus, internet may become another land of competition and all the malicious activities we are witnessing in the current organizational world would enter the world of internet also. The struggle for dominance or monopoly, would force the ISP’s to use all types of profit making strategies and the ordinary people may not get easy or free access to some of the prominent internet services in future. “Broadband service providers should charge consumers only once for Internet access, do not favor one content provider over another, and do not charge content providers for sending information over broadband lines to end users”(Guo, et al, 2010, p.245) On October 19, 2007, the Associated Press (AP) reported that Comcast, the United States’ largest cable TV operator and second largest Internet provider, had interfered with users’ access to file-sharing sites such as BitTorrent. This practice is an example of discrimination in which ISPs intended to slow down some forms of traffic while giving others priority. Comcast may have had a benign reason for this practice—so called traffic shaping—to prevent file sharing traffic from using up too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers (Choi and Kim, 2010, p. 447). The above example clearly shows that ISP’s can effectively control internet traffic in order to conserve their business interests. In other words, they can easily provide speedy services to some customers (Paid Customers) and reduce the internet speed of other customers (Free customers). In other words, in the absence of net neutrality, there will be two types of internet users; one who is able to access high speed internet and one who is able to access only the low speed internet. A kind of discrimination can thus enter in the world of internet usage. It is just like providing better healthcare to those who are rich and providing poor healthcare to those who are poor. The files uploaded by one user are normally downloaded by other users. Non-uniform traffic management in internet services will create lot of problems in uploading and downloading of files in file-sharing networks. In order to avoid such ramifications, all the internet traffics should be treated equally to ensure all the users are getting uniform access to internet. In its most basic sense, net neutrality advocates warn that the principle of unfettered access to IP-based content, which has allowed the Internet to become the cosmopolitan, egalitarian, champion of freedom-of-expression, destroyer of geographic/economic barriers, and revolutionary technology that it is today, is now under threat (Couldn't care net [Internet], 2007, p.15) Current world is marching to towards a world of democracy. Many of the totalitarian administrations in Eastern Europe faced destruction in the past few decades and many other Islamic countries under dictatorship are currently trying to embrace democracy. Even in communist China, the call for democracy is strengthening. Human rights, freedom of expression etc are topics which are getting prominence in the current world. In China, internet contents are censored heavily before displaying it in front of the users and Americans are constantly ridiculing the attitude of Chinese administration in preventing or controlling people’s rights of freedom of expression and internet usage. It should be noted that by allowing internet service providers to function freely, America is also doing the same thing what their Chinese counterparts are doing. The ultimate effects of censoring of information and commercialization of information are the same; majority of the people will not get the information easily. In other words, net neutrality is necessary to distribute internet information uniformly to the people. Internet service providers (ISPs) argue that net neutrality prevents them from offering tiered services to raise revenues—revenues that could be used to build out and upgrade networks—while other business groups see an opportunity for more innovation if the government's current regulatory framework—which supports what has become known as "net neutrality"—can be jettisoned (The Battle for the Net, 2011, p.4) Removal of net neutrality or giving permission to the private ISP’s to generate uncontrolled revenue from internet in the name of quality improvement, can bring more harm than the goods. For example, it should be noted that privatization has actually destroyed American educational systems. Many of the public schools in America were already closed down and many others are expecting the same fate in the near future itself because of stiff competition from private schools. Students from ordinary families are struggling to get quality education at present. American government welcomed private participation in educational sector, arguing that private schools will increase competition and thereby the quality of education will also be increased. However, it is evident from the current statistics that privatization has not increased the quality of education very much. On the other hand, it prevented ordinary people from getting proper education. Removal of net neutrality may bring same fate to the internet world. ISP’s will give more attention to the profit making strategies rather than improving the service standards. The ultimate victim would be again the ordinary people. It should be noted that Google is currently used by millions of people as their favorite search engine since it is a free service. If Google starts to collect some fees for using its search engine, what will happen? The following illustrations will give a rough idea about what will happen if the ISP’s starts to collect fees for their services. An example of how ISPs would like to break up the current cost of the Internet in to a tiered structure instead of one flat rate. The above illustrations clearly suggests that the internet users will be forced to pay more if the ISP’s enforce a tiered structure of billing instead of one flat rate. In a flat rate billing system, internet users need to pay only a fixed amount monthly to the ISP’s for the unlimited usage of internet services. On the other hand, in a tired system of billing, the users may force to pay for each and every additional service, they are getting from internet. For example, most of the internet surfers use internet for gaming and video streaming. ISP’s will charge special rates for such additional services. Only the web browsing will be the part of normal internet service under such a tired system of billing. The following illustrations make the point clearer. An example split of types of Internet usage statistics for downloading content in March 2011. The above illustrations clearly suggest that more than half of the internet users are using internet for video downloading. Moreover, a substantial portion of the users, use internet for social networking and music downloads. All these services will come under the category of general services if net neutrality is preserved. Otherwise, users will be forced to pay for each and every additional internet service they use in addition to web browsing. Conclusions Net neutrality is a hot topic and both sides have valid points for why and why not regarding the method of data distributions. On one side the Internet is seen as a single flow of information. On the other side the service providers see the flow as having multiple types of streams that may or may not need priority over one or the other. The Internet was originally created to connect as many people as possible and provide a method of getting as much information around as possible. Providers now want to restrict the amount of information that flows into locations unless a premium is paid. Creating these restrictions make the Internet a form of cable TV service where if a user wants to listen to music he or she would have to purchase a music package and if a user wants to surf the web then he or she would have to purchase a web surfing package. This is totally against the ideals of the Internet and why it exists. Companies need to stay neutral just as the water company is neutral. Allow people to purchase as much as they can consume and not restricts the pipes just because a person may want to install a sprinkler system. References 1. Collins L ( 2010). In neutral. Engineering & Technology 24 July - 6 August 2010 www.theiet.org/magazine. EBSCOhost 2. Choi J.P and KimB.C. (2010). Net neutrality and investment incentives. RAND Journal of Economics Vol. 41, No. 3, Autumn 2010 pp. 446–471. EBSCOhost 3. Couldn't care net [Internet] (2007). Internet regulation Communications Engineer June/July 2007 EBSCOhost 4. Greyson D. (2010). Net Neutrality: A Library Issue Feliciter • Issue #2, 2010 • Vol. 56 Canadian Library Association EBSCOhost 5. Guo H, Bandyopadhyay S, Cheng H.K, and Yang Y.C (2010). Net Neutrality and Vertical Integration of Content and Broadband Services Journal of Management Information Systems / Fall 2010, Vol. 27, No. 2, DOI 10.2753/MIS0742-1222270208. pp. 243–275. EBSCOhost. 6. The Battle for the Net (2011). Research • Technology Management January—February 2011 EBSCOhost Read More