Q)I need information on Internet Neutrality (
Net Neutrality) covering not only the common sense aspects (why we should stop
the gov) but how it will differently affect consumers and most importantly the
WEB 2.0 generation of start-ups and openness ( open source applications, p2p
sharing, social media/networks, etc.) and entertainment ( the surge of
independent musicians and artists.)
Are there any big companies (preferably in communications or media) who are
pushing the envelope and would ultimately benefit?
There should be a way to connect this to the concept of their becoming two
internets, the paid and unpaid.
Sol:
Net neutrality (also Network neutrality, Internet
neutrality) is one of the principle proposed for all the users accessing networks and participating
in the Internet
that gives no restrictions by the ISP’s(Internet service providers) and also the governments
on sites, contents and platforms, also the kinds of equipment that may be
attached while sending to others, and the modes of communication involved.
Service providers argue that if
net neutrality is not enforced, they will have sufficient incentives to build
special high-quality channels that will take the Internet to the next level of
its evolution. But if they do get their needy wish, net neutrality is then consigned
to the only dustbin, and they do build the new services, but no one uses that. If
the networks that are mostly built are the only ones that are publicly
discussed, which is a likely prospect.
What will service providers
publicly promise to do, when they are given with complete control of their own
networks, is to build the special facilities for the streaming movies? But there
are few fatal defects to the above promise. One is that movies are not likely
to offer all that much income. The other is that delivering movies in real-time
streaming audio/video is the one of the wrong solution, expensive and
unnecessary.
If Internet service providers are
to derive the most significant revenues and also the profits by exploiting the
available freedom from the net neutrality limitations, then they will need to be
engaged in much more.
Such calls for preemptive
regulation are only unjustified. There is no evidence for those broadband
operators who are unfairly blocking access to the websites or online services
today, and there is no other reason to expect them to do so in the near future.
No firm or corporate has any sort of bottleneck control over the market power
in the speedy broadband marketplace; it is also very much a competitive
free-for-all, and no one has any idea about what the future market will look
like with so many new other technologies and operators also entering the
picture. In the absence of the clear harm, government typically doesn’t
regulate in the preemptive, prophylactic fashion as a CBUI members are
requesting.
Moreover, from being something the
regulators should forbid, vertical integration of the new features and also the
services by broadband network operators is one of the essential part of the
innovation strategy and companies will need to use for competing and offer
customers the available services they demand.
Network operators also have got
the property rights in their systems so that they need to be acknowledged and also
honored. Net neutrality mandates would be flout on those property rights and hence
reject freedom of contract in this marketplace.
This will also affect the
consumers in such a way that they will not be able to enter some of the sites
or they will be not be able to access or download some of the information since
user are not restricted on the data access from the website, so that same user
can go for unlimited downloads resulting in others not able to access the
required information in case of emergency. Even in perspective to WEB 2.0
generation of startups and openness the social community sites are loaded with
unnecessary junk data due to net neutrality as a result the maintenance of the website as well as database becomes
complex also resulting in follow ups so that there is no illegal data coming
into the websites from any of the users.
Allegations of discrimination
have come up with many heated intellectual debates as well as countless
legislative and judicial squabbles in the United States of America. Regardless
of the available veracity of the accusations in the given case, the charges are
quite often sensitive and serious. Sometimes the word “discrimination” gets thrown
in a very cavalier manner by the parties watching to enlist the support of
government in a dispute in which it doesn’t belong. A good recent example of
that comes from the field of Internet policy. A heated industry catfight has
erupted between major technology companies over how Internet content should be
accessed through high-speed broadband networks owned by cable or telephone companies.
One of the group called the
Coalition of the broadband Users
and also the innovators which adds among its members like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft,
EBay, Yahoo and Disney has petitioned the FCC (Federal Communications
Commission) to implement rules to ensure that cable and BSPs (broadband service
providers) will not make use of their control of speedy networks to disturb
consumer access to the websites or other users access. The CBUI proposal or the
variations of it, has been typically labeled “digital nondiscrimination Or “Net
neutrality”. Despite in the absence of the evidence that network operators are
currently being imposed “discriminatory” restrictions on the network users.
CBUI members claim the FCC which
adopt the preemptive safeguards which will ensure that the consumer access to
Internet content is unfettered and full in the near future. In filings with the
FCC and CBUI members the claim that cable and telephone companies are forging into
a broadband duopoly which will also define the Internet for some time and
network operators to encumber or the infringe in the relationships among their
customers in between their customers and destinations on the Internet. Stanford
University professor Lawrence Lessig—famed for leading and similar
antidiscrimination antitrust crusade against the Microsoft that has endorsed
the CBUI Net neutrality proposal, arguing, about the network owner is
increasingly in the existing position of picking as well as choosing how the
network gets used. Hence others, such as FCC commissioner Michael Copps, are
speaking about the issue in far more apocalyptic terms.
We could be on the verge of the inflicting
terrible damage on the Internet network. I am worried that we could be able
to witness the start and also the end of
the available network or internet as we know it. Which proponents of the internet
neutrality such as Copps, Lessig, and CBUI all members fear is that Broadband Service
Providers will leverage their supposed market power is to force the customers
to accept a variety of unsavory limitations on the use of the available networks
owned by Broadband service providers. For eg, access to some specific sites
might be restricted, the attachment of few technologies or some devices might
be forbidden and also additional networks might not be allowed due to security
reasons to develop at the periphery, or at edge, or at the network (i.e., where consumers interface
with the network). For eg, Broadband Service Providers might seek to curtail
the attachment of wireless fidelity(WIFI) devices or networks by the consumers.
It is definitely plausible that Broadband
Service providers might restrict consumer’s access to the network content or restrict
attachment of various other devices or networks at the available edge of the
system. Since there are some examples of Broadband Service Providers engaged in
such tasks today, there might be scenarios in which it is exactly sensible for
a network owner to un-restrict the existing restrictions or differential pricing
available schemes on its speedy broadband customers. Network owners may also
discourage the use of other certain devices on the available networks to stop
system crashes and network interference. They may also need to price the services
separately to protect network from congestion or in capturing higher revenues
on better bandwidth intensive services. They might need to integrate the content
vertically and conduits on their available systems, or make partnerships with
other firms so that they can help them to reach the new customers and also offer
them superior services. Also there might be scenarios in which stoppage of
access to certain websites makes sense for most of the network operators. They might
block access to certain websites that is in some controversy or it might
contain material where some subscribers might find it as objectionable, or they
might block sites simply to protect running the ads of a leading corporate competitor.
Consumers will consider few restrictions;
say as a prohibition on the upcoming release of viruses on a broadband network,
which is trivial and fully acceptable. Other stoppage, such as a restriction on
the access to the competitor’s website or a specific competitor’s advertisement,
will be considered an intolerable constraint by many of the corporate users.
But the important concept here is
whether any of this should be considered as an illegal work and is to be
prohibited by law. Most regulators adopt the regulations in governing the underlying
available infrastructure of speedy broadband networks or the existing overall
architecture of the network to ensure that openness or neutrality and also the
end-to-end characters of the network are preserved. Also what would be the impact
of such a regulation in terms of the existing economic incentives for current
and upcoming future broadband operators to fully innovate and also invest in most
expensive new networks. Do the rights of property of network owners come into picture
here? Do high tech network operators are even having the property rights in
this case. Those are also complicated with the questions that will deserve
extensive exploration also before policymakers rush to adopt the supposedly
simple internet neutrality regulatory guidelines. In the last, the only real
question in this debate can be simply stated as who will decide. That is
nothing but who will call the shots of the network owners or someone else when
it always comes to questions about the use of infrastructure in the Information
age. For the reasons listed below, it would be wise for the policymakers to make
allow the entities that own and also operate broadband networks in the freedom
to experiment with few various business models to better serve the consumers.
The alternative of preemptive and prophylactic government regulation also has
far too many downsides. Discrimination in this concept is something difficult
to define with and also open to the very much subjective topic. Disputes over what
constitutes on this discrimination will definitely lead to endless and
regulatory proceedings which will open the door to a great deal of the mischief
by all the companies or all the organizations that will feel that they should
have greater control over how the broadband networks are well operated, either
in a better-faith effort to improve the existing operation of those networks or
to be frank in a more self-centered effort to game with the regulatory system
to their own as an advantage. Net neutrality regulation also has the property
rights Broadband Service Providers possess in the infrastructure they will also
own and operate. Hence by ignoring property rights and by opening the door to
the increased regulatory meddling, internet neutrality regulation threatens to
the retard innovation and also investment in new broadband facilities. Instead
of keeping so preoccupied with maximizing number of the consumer welfare within
the confined existing systems, proponents of the net neutrality, especially the
impressive list of well heeled corporate that are part of CBUI will need to put
more thought and energy into idea of how the networks of the future are to be
funded and constructed. The principle that CBUI members being seem to ignore is
that competition in the above creation of networks is very important as
competition in the goods as well as services that get sold over existing
networks.
Big companies definitely gets
benefited from this since there is not restrictions on the net access and usage
hence they will always go for heavy use large downloads resulting in more use
when compared to individuals where they also make large profits with the help
of this hence they get benefited from net neutrality.
Finally, proponents of Net
neutrality will also results in ignoring the fact about the network capacity usage
and the profit motive which will always provide very powerful checks on overly
restrictive as well as carrier activities. Carriers definitely make money always
by only carrying huge traffics. Capacity utilization is one of the very
important concepts in the field of networking business. A speedy broadband
network without the subscribers is like a airplane with the empty seats and a
recipe for financial disaster. Broadband Service Providers will not want to
restrict the traffic flows or encumber Net-surfing activities for the fear of diminished
capacity use as as frustrated consumers will consume less of those available networks,
or leave the network altogether as free. That is why cable operators will not
configure their set top boxes to middle with the consumer access to traditional
television channel stations. Even though they will have the technical
capability to restrict the existing stations consumers watch or even though when
they want to watch them, cable operators understand that their video with customer
base will grow only if they will expand the range of the viewing options, not
curtail or artificially limit of them. Hence finally in attempting to attract
as many as subscribers as possible, Broadband Service Providers will also need
to take few steps to make sure the integrity as well as performance of the
networks or to expand the range of the service offerings to attract new customers.
That is why some minor restrictions on the certain types of network uses where activities
will occasionally be imposed by carriers. For eg, cable companies currently
provides access to the certain video channels on a pay-per-view plan basis, largely
because most users don’t want, in that way so their children will not gain
access to those channels. Broadband Service Providers will have to strike an dedicated
balance, but the profit will motive them with a powerful incentive not to restrict
activities on their networks. That is especially the case of the speedy broadband
market which grows increasingly competitive hence consumers have more options from
which they can choose.
Hence there should be a way to
connect this to the concept of their becoming two internets, the paid and
unpaid. Generally there are policies saying about the fair usage policy
where the users are restricted to some limits in the unlimited plans of data
usage so that if they cross the limit of that then they should pay extra from
the actual rentals. This will act as paid internet where it the usage is within
the limits then it is concept of free internet. This will definitely benefit
the Internet service providers in limiting the user’s mainly corporate users
since the restriction is made such that unlimited access is controlled.
References:
2) The Delusions of Net
Neutrality | Andrew Odlyzko | Voices ... (n.d.). Retrieved from
--voices.allthingsd----20080904/the-delusions-of-net-neutrality/
3)
A e-book book on net
neutrality, towards co regulatory solution, 2009
