Net Neutrality Celebration, Essay Example

The debate on net neutrality has been alive over the past five years. It encompasses economic, social and political aspects over the internet (a public information network) and respective duties of private carriers such as Internet service providers (ISPs), telephone and cable companies. As early as the 2000s, the tendency of internet carriers blocking some network attachments as well as controlling access to new content providers or applications raised numerous questions. It is at this point that the call to safeguard net neutrality took center stage. The debate has posed familiar questions to students pursuing communications or travel related disciplines. Courts and governments have for a long time grappled with the duties of carriers, including telephone companies, railroads and ferries. These duties are owed to the public because of their necessity to social and economic welfare.

In the plainest terms, the Internet is an information network intermediating between different agent groups that comprise content providers and users with the understanding that there is a possibility of role reversal whereby the users may also act as content providers. The term “content” loosely refers to all types of applications, media, retailers, and online services. The concept of net neutrality presupposes that all the internet contents and services should be accorded equal treatment. The concept guarantees equality for all internet activities and websites without taking into account extraneous factors such as funding resources. Essentially, net neutrality is about the way in which bloggers and major newspaper corporations can compete for readers. On a similar note, net neutrality entails new bands building underground audiences, which make them become famous just like established bands. It could also be looked at in terms of Google listing all the sites corresponding to a query instead of only those sites that pay larger amounts of money to be hosted (Sommer 1).

Net neutrality draws from the Darwinian principle of competition stipulating that only the fittest survive in a competitive environment. Although the Darwinian principle has been used as a point of reference in regard to the starting of competition, it is imperative to consider the  current era that we live in which revolves around competition or “evolutionary competition” as has been  worded Kenneth and whether you are concerned in business, internet providing, politics, in the same way, internet activities and contents compete highly, which makes survival for the fittest unavoidable.  The promotion of net neutrality imports a set of challenges similar to the evolutionary competition. The introduction of government policies to regulate such evolutionary competition should not leave room for the short-term interests to be a barrier to the availability of best products for end-users (Gross 1). There have been concerns from communications regulators that private interests often conflict with public interests in the internet environment that is competitively innovative. If net neutrality is ignored, end-users will shun the internet due to the associated burdens of biased networks.

The debate has been in support for and against net neutrality (that is, whether internet data deserves equal treatment or not). The importance of this debate is not disputed because the subject is new. In addition, information and communication technology evolves at a very fast pace, making it hard to catch up with in terms of research on emerging issues. The arguments in support of and against net neutrality have wielded lobby-power. The government and regulators have been trapped in this debate. Those challenging net neutrality include anti-state activists, right wing think tanks, and a larger part of the ISPs and telecommunication platforms. Those in support of the preservation of net neutrality include communication rights activists, civil rights groups, and a larger segment of content producers (Al Jazeera 1).

Those in opposition of net neutrality have brought forth the claim that net neutrality hinders innovation due to its tendency to stifle new business models, step up regulation and state intervention, impede the provision of better services, and reduce consumer choice. On the other hand, those who support net neutrality argue that it encourages innovation through the assurance of a balanced field for all persons active online. For this reason, taking place in the debate causes an unfair situation while transforming ISPs into cable operators with artificial scarcity (Gross 1).

The controversies about the Internet today never really existed at the beginning. They have surpassed the expectations and there are no prospects of better days to come (Crowcroft, 1). The complexity of the internet as an ICT infrastructure and a network has only increased further. Its destructive effects have touched every corner of the globe. The Internet has availed new communication channels, which have displaced the traditional ways. In the process, new behavior patterns have emerged. In addition, people today have access to loads of information and digital contents, which previously were but a dream. These benefits have shown no bias between the media literate and the amateurs. In this regard, the debates surrounding the Internet are not mere economic or technical discourses. The debates have wider social, cultural and political implications, which make them a matter of national and international interest with the public at the heart of it all (Cavanagh, 13).

Net neutrality has First Amendment implications as far as the Internet is concerned. The ease of handling freedom of speech cannot extend to net neutrality because the parameters of the latter cannot be explored fully. Not all things can apply simultaneously in all contexts. Even democratic regimes have never achieved such levels of efficacy. Freedom of speech can only be limited in a democracy under specific circumstances, including racism, harm, or public interest considerations. On a similar note, compromising on net neutrality should be limited to specific and clear reasons that are transparent and serve both private and public interests or the implementation of which guarantee excellent service to all.

Net-neutrality and free speech are more or less related. In this case, an individual may have full opportunity of expressing his/her mind freely without being penalized. Furthermore, with net-neutrality, service providers will have no means of controlling whatever individuals may want to pose in the net. In fact, individual may express their mind to the fullest just like in freedom of speech (May 198). The debate on net –neutrality is one that has met both pro and counter arguments. On the realm of free speech, the opponents of net neutrality assert that it violates some rights in the First Amendments. ISPs are forced to accept some forms of communications that may be tantamount to illegal speech. On the other hand, Proponents of net-neutrality claim that it acts as a public forum and therefore it should give equal protection to all forms of ideas as expressed by individuals.

The Cutting Edge

The United States has encountered a great extent of contention with regard to net neutrality among the network users together with the access providers dating back from as far as 1990 (Gans, 4) Clarity in legal restrictions for the practices that could impede net neutrality have been lacking until 2015. Pressure has been mounting on the Supreme Court as well as the congress with corporations that support the two sides spending significantly huge amounts of money for their lobby efforts. In five occasions during 2005 to 2012, bills on provisions of net neutrality have been proposed in Congress but failed (Pogue, 12). The intentions of the bills entailed prohibition of providers of internet services against the application of a variety of variable models of pricing on the basis of the Quality of Service level of the user which is seen as an industry’s tiered service as well as a means of price discrimination in price for particular groups of economists (Wu, 34).

The rules governing net neutrality in the United States have significant effects on the global internet governance. This has resulted to reshaping of a debate concerning the regulation of the internet as a global chief super power on decisions made on the basis of fork-in-the-road concerning the style of governance of their cyberspace (Litan, 16). Although the decision of the United States on net neutrality is anticipated to have significant implications on the global internet freedom, there is no clear indication that the decisions are about to hurt others.

Theoretically, the internet is a resource at the disposal of everyone. It is a collection of servers and end hosts owned by private persons. According to most people, no one person or entity should wield the power to limit the use of the internet. Unfortunately, individuals and entities have occasioned internet interruptions of late. ISPs are able to bar their customers from accessing the internet or certain parts of the internet. Those in opposition of net neutrality have always lodged the argument that the increase in data-exchange and streaming activity compromises the quality of service if data is to be treated based on first come first served. They claim that popular content will have to be stored near the consumer, which attracts additional cost. Two debates emerge from this argument, which should be separated. In the first instance, the stability of the internet is at issue due to the collective use of the same. In the second instance, it is questionable whether telecommunication companies and ISPs should differentiate pricing between levels of access quality for both consumers and content providers.

Separating the debates brings out the bone of contention in the current debate over net neutrality.  Essentially, there is the urge to surrender the concept of net neutrality in what is considered the surest way to good service quality. This argument, however, is a mechanism by the telecom industry to force content providers to make payment for the access of internet subscribers. The war goes on among content providers about how to compel internet users to pay for internet access (Lee and Wu 70). It is dangerous to open this debate here because it is part of the unfolding challenges of Internet usage. The antics used by the telecommunication industry to force content providers to make payment for the access of internet subscribers offers no legitimate reasons to turn a blind eye to the First Amendment implications of net neutrality.

To conclude, the growth of the internet today is quite exponential. The internet has become a complex web of tightly connected networks and hosts. The net neutrality laws in place provide that these networks can send to each other data and receive data at no extra costs. If net neutrality were inapplicable, the situation would be quite different. Network operators would closely regulate traffic and thrive on minting money out of each other’s endeavors instead of focusing on the provision of quality service. In as much as net neutrality poses a number of challenges to end-users and content providers, its benefits largely outweigh the challenges. Net neutrality avails an opportunity for new developers to share with the world their ideas by removing the financial barrier. Even though broadband providers benefit from the absence of net neutrality (Ruiz and Lohr 1), most content providers would suffer greater harm. In addition, the elimination of net neutrality is sure to hamper the operations of the Internet and the economies built on Internet services. The rate at which the technology industry is advancing is quite fast. Predicting the future or making recommendations for better prospects thereof is impossible. Nevertheless, there is certainty as to one fundamental aspect: the elimination of net neutrality will bring a permanent change to the Internet, which change would be worse. The Internet should better be left the way it originated. The policies in place to regulate the internet back then were very good. These should have been kept intact to avoid the challenges witnessed currently.

Works Cited

Al Jazeera. “Net Neutrality celebration: Grassroots organisations that lobbied for net neutrality celebrate their victory in their own ways.” Al Jazeera News, February 28, 2015. Accessed from http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/americas/2015/02/net-neutrality- celebration-150228190627957.html

Cavanagh, Sean. “Perceived Threat To Net Neutrality Sparks Furor.” Education Week 34.12 (2014): 11. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2014.

Crowcroft, Jon. Net Neutrality: the Technical Side of the Debate: a White Paper. Cambridge.  ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2007.

Gans, Joshua S. “Weak Versus Strong Net Neutrality.” (2014): EconLit. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.

Gross, Dough. “Pay to play’ on the Web?: Net neutrality explained.” CNN News, January 16, 2014. Accessed from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/15/tech/web/net-neutrality-explained/

Lee, Robin S. and Wu, Tim. “Subsidizing Creativity through Network Design: Zero-Pricing and

Litan, Robert E. “Why Business Should Oppose Net Neutrality.” Harvard Business Review. N.p., 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

May, Randolph J. “Net Neutrality Mandates: Neutering the First Amendment in the Digital Age.” Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 3.1 (2007):197-210

Net Neutrality.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23.3 (2009): 61-76

Pogue, David. “The Net Neutrality Debate in 2 Minutes or Less.” Scientific American Global RSS. N.p., 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

Ruiz, Rebecca and Lohr, Steve. “F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility.” The New York Times, February 26, 2015. Accessed from             http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html?_r=0

Sommer, Jeff. “What the Net Neutrality Rules Say.” The New York Times, March 12, 2015. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/technology/net-neutrality-rules-explained.html

Wu, Tim, comp. Network Neutrality, Broadband. Vers. Final. 23 Apr. 2005. Apr. 2008.