Introduction
When people go online to connect and work with others or browse the internet, they always expect that they will get what they want. Such expectations are founded on the idea that individuals have the freedom to read, hear, and see whatever they would like to without any struggles. This element of internet usage has a relationship with the fact that people in the contemporary world advocate for freedom in each of their endeavors. In technical terms, the freedom that people expect to have while using the internet constitutes what network neutrality concerns. People’s expectations are that their governments or their internet service providers should treat all internet content alike. This idea means that network neutrality is founded on the concept that there should be no discrimination or preferential treatment of the websites that people visit on foundations of their content, application, or platform over which they access such information. Most importantly, the idea considers that no should be spied on the type of content that they are accessing over the internet so that they can be charged differently based on the type of content that they are accessing.
In the sense the freedom of internet usage, net neutrality is a critical element of a guarantee to the freedom of speech for most people. In the same manner that the phone companies should not predetermine whom an individual calls or texts, internet service providers should not be allowed to determine the type of content that people access over the internet. While the idea of net neutrality appears a common sense thing to some people, it is imperative noting that not everyone advocates its existence, which is why this topic is important for modern-day users of the internet. Presently, most internet service providers would like to develop a ‘tiered internet’ in which they will have the freedom to charger prices discriminatively depending on the types of content that their subscribers access online. Most users the world over argue otherwise for the fact that it implies telecommunications firms would have an advantage of checking on the nature of the activities that each of their subscribers would be doing over the internet, which would be a direct violation of the right to privacy. Presently, the Federal Communications Commission of the US (FCC) has opted to scrap most of the rules of net neutrality that have been in existence. For such a reason, the objective of this paper is to argue on the fundamental importance of network neutrality. The essay contends that while internet service providers would like the idea of net neutrality to be done away with altogether, it is critical that governments prevent them from doing so since it guards the primary rights of the freedom of speech and right to privacy that most governmental constitutions worldwide grant their citizens. In the development of the essay, it is important that the paper explore a brief history of the idea of network neutrality since it helps in constructing its importance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A Brief History of Network Neutrality
The quest for network neutrality, although in a variant approach, began in 1934. At this time the Communications Act of the US bestowed power to the FCC to control each element of foreign and domestic communications as long as such regulations do not concern the devices of such communications and the means of the same communications (Pil and Kim, 2010; Rathman, 2017). Later, in the 1980s, the Computer Policy was developed by the FCC to differentiate enhanced services from elementary ones. Telephone lines, airlines, and roads fell directly under the elementary services category while all those services that required a computer feel in the other category. Such a distinction became more critical after the invention of the internet in 1989 (Pil and Kim, 2010). The Telecommunications Act of 1996 of the US rebranded the elementary service providers as the telecommunication carriers while those that offered the enhanced ones were considered internet service providers. The emergence of the cable broadband in 2002 was heralded as a type of information service that would be free from all forms of regulations from federal regulations. The year 2003 marked a fundamental milestone when Tim Wu first coined the idea of net neutrality (Rathman, 2017; Hahn and Wallsten, 2006). The term created much buzz among lawmakers and academicians, which pushed the US to debate its importance and a later implementation as a rule in 2005. The then chairperson of the FCC, Michael Powell, spelled out for critical rules for the usage of the internet listed below.
Freedom for the users to acquire any type of service plan
The freedom for the users to connect devices to their computers for downloading and saving information from the internet
The freedom for the users to utilize any type of online application
Freedom for the users to access each type of legal content
The FCC reclassified the DSL as well as other providers of wireless services as information services in the same year. This new categorization implied that the companies were not subjected to laws of consumer protection (Marsden, 2010). In fact, Comcast won a landmark case against the FCC after it had been accused of lowering torrenting speeds in 2007 since the court found that the firm was not a telecommunications provider and that it was not regulated by any consumer protections laws (Pil and Kim, 2010). The next two years, in 2009, saw another critical milestone in net neutrality since it saw an adoption of a legislation on internet usage by the European Union that required any user who entered into a contract with an internet service provider to be informed of the connection speeds and bandwidths, including all types of restrictions that accompanied the service. In this arrangement, therefore, the users would be guided in their decision making before they entered into any agreements with their preferred internet service providers (Marsden, 2010).
Still in 2009, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of the US allocated an budgetary investment of $7.2 billion for the strengthening of network neutrality. However, despite the positive advancements, restrictions were persistent. For example, in 2010, operators from the UK were accused of having blocked sites for video streaming and those of P2P while Verizon and Google attempted to cut a contract that would be a violation of the established rules of network neutrality (Rathman, 2017). Such occurrences resulted in internet protests from interested companies such as Wikipedia and Reddit, which sought to keep the internet a free zone for all people. The European Union approved policies that would boost net neutrality in 2014 and almost at the same time, most US nationals signed a petition requiring the reclassification the providers of broadband services as telecommunication providers by the FCC (Rathman, 2017). Following lengthy battling, mostly in the courts in all the fifty states and the District of Columbia, network neutrality received a major boost in 2015. In this year, the Democrats passed stringent laws on net neutrality, which offered unhindered access to the internet for everyone. The rules were among the signature policy landmarks of the Obama administration since they directed all internet service providers to treat all internet content equally. However, the internet service providers criticized the rules, arguing that they were burdensome and unrequired.
Despite all the steps that the US and other nations have taken in ensuring the existence of net neutrality, such efforts could be put to a waste as the current regime of President Trump has a different perspective of its usefulness. The most significant argument in the favor of this proposition is the fact that Ajit Pai was recently appointed as the chairperson of FCC (Rathman, 2017). It is notable that this appointment is a threat to the sustenance of net neutrality since during the 2015 debates on its importance, Pai refused to vote for the net neutrality debate. In fact, he commented in December 2016 that the net neutrality days were greatly numbered (Rathman, 2017). According to Pai, broadband firms need to subjected to similar laws as those of the traditional companies offering cellphone services and that he hoped to repeal the laws laid down by the former regime laid down in 2015. Upon the appointment of Pai in January 2017, the FCC, which is now controlled by the Republicans, moved quickly to take gradual steps designed to dismantle the present laws on neutrality such as permitting the internet service providers to retail on client data. Therefore, there are all reasons to fear that net neutrality will soon be abolished in the US. The current Trump administration seems to side with the internet service providers, which is why a need exists to argue for network neutrality as this essay does subsequently.
The Importance of Net Neutrality, What Opponents Cite and whyit should be Supported
Before setting on the arguments for neutrality of the internet, it is critical to consider why some people, such as Pai have been opposing it. Anti-network neutrality activists contend that the providers of internet services have all the rights to disseminate their services preferentially among their clients (Gordon, 2010). They still posit that the internet service providers have been at the frontline in the innovation of technologies for the provision of such services. According to this argument, therefore, according preferential treatment to variant services should not be illegal, but people should perceive such practices as necessary in the modern corporate world. The opponents of a free internet consider that in the Netflix/Comcast debate of the recent past, Netflix was sucking up all its bandwidth and that they were the ones to incur the charges for all the required updates by the systems of operation of Comcast (Gordon, 2010). This argument is further connected to the proposition that the companies that provide internet services to their consumers are corporate institutions just like the rest. For such reasons, most proponents of a free market economy ague against governmental legislative moves in their operations. According to the ideal of a free-market operation, the government is an unnecessary force in the market since the firms act independently according to the rules of demand and supply. For such a reason, the proponents argue that the companies will be able to compete fairly among themselves and make their services of the required consumer consumption standards.
There are several reasons why the internet should be a fair ground for all users. First, it is needful to consider that a free and open internet is a signature invention of the present time, which is why its control should never be granted to a few individuals, the firms that seek to exploit users for their profit motives. Technological inventions in history have all been geared to help humankind conquer his environment in one way or the other. Even while some of such inventions have not been useful or have turned out to be destructive, it is notable that the invention of the internet has changed life in almost all aspects. The most important effect of the internet on the modern population is its ability to allow people an access to information (Cheng, Bandyopadhyay, and Guo, 2011). Of course, other influences of the internet on the aspects of human life such as economic and social ones cannot be overlooked. Nevertheless, the access to information is a significant element of modern living, which is why the constitution of the US makes it a right to people to access information (Cheng, Bandyopadhyay, and Guo, 2011). Net neutrality laws are designed to ensure that all corporations offering internet services treat their content equally, and that they should discriminate among their subscribers based on the content they access. Fighting such regulations entirely means that the companies offering such services would be permitted to do whatever they wish, which may include denying people a right to access information because they cannot pay for it. When people have a right to access public information, it could be easy for some governments around the world to deny them such a fundamental right through storing the data on sites that require them to pay significantly for their accessibility. Even while such an argument might be termed over-ambitious, it is plausible to argue that it is not a purely hypothetical situation since some nations have such a history, especially those that have little considerations for transparency and accountability in the handling of public issues.
Second, net neutrality laws are significant in the promotion of competition among internet service providing companies. Basic principles of economics inform this argument, particularly on the laws of demand and supply and the ability of governments to regulate business activities. Borrowing from the basic laws of demand and supply, an increase in demand causes a respective increase in the supply of services (Hahn and Wallsten, 2006). In extrapolation of the same hypothesis, net neutrality laws would mean that people will have an increased access to information since they would not be limited to the types of sites that they are free to visit. In this line of thought, each of the companies would strive to attract as many clients as possible through improving the quality of their service provision and other issues. When this type of scenario arises, consumers of the internet services are likely to benefit since the companies will always strive to provision the best types of services because they would be undifferentiated from their competitors if they act otherwise (Lee and Wu, 2009). Net neutrality laws are also likely to guard against the development of a conglomerate of firms that would put the industry out of the reach of some startup companies. The reason given in support for this supposition is that when organizations are allowed to formulate their own policies around issues of quality and price of commodities and services, they are more likely to adopt those policies that suppress competition and promote their profitability (Hahn and Wallsten, 2006). It is needful, therefore, that a system exists to avoid the possibilities of consumer exploitation, and for the objectives of this paper, net neutrality would be the best of such means of regulation.
Third, when the internet is open and free for all people, it is possible that innovation would arise. This argument also borrows from the fact that a free internet would mean that firms strive to differentiate their products from those of their competitors. When only a few companies control the rate of content accessibility over the internet, it is likely that they would have little motivation to invent new technologies that would benefit the consumers. This argument is also based on the principles of economics, which is the fact that organizations and individuals only engage in activities whose returns exceed the expenses. The internet service providers would feel not incentives in pushing for new technologies since they would be benefiting maximally from the extant regulations that would make people pay more for the content that they access (Hahn and Wallsten, 2006). However, when regulations require that the companies provide all content to their customers over the internet discriminative of the types of content offered, the companies are likely to step up their efforts, which will mainly entail moving to attract more clients. This move constitutes the onset of innovation and the improvement of the quality of services that clients receive from the organizations offering internet services.
A further argument in the favor of net neutrality is the fact that if the internet service providers were to be given too much power, they are likely to abuse it. The abuse of power could not only concern the choice to price the products and services as described in the preceding paragraphs of this section, but in the fact that some companies are likely to limit what types of applications the users are likely to be using. One of such examples could be the fact that some mobile service providers would limit the usage of applications such as Google Voice as well as related products for the fact that they allow users to send text messages without having to incur the accrued charges when they do so over their network (Lee and Wu, 2009). For such reasons, cellphone carriers are likely to block the accessibility of Google Voice and related services from consumers’ smartphones so that the clients are compelled to pay for the texting services offered by the company. In another case, the mobile service providers, upon the realization that more people are in demand for Facebook services over their smartphones, they are likely to charge such clients an extra fee for the accessibility of the services even while they would be having the required bandwidth. In this case, the motivation of the mobile service providers would be to make extra profit because of the high demand of Facebook and related services by their clients. Therefore, as seen from these examples, net neutrality is a critical move in ensuring that people use what they wish in accessing the internet and the stored information on it.
In a world that has seen a significant rise in entrepreneurship, net neutrality would serve as a means of growing this sector of the global economy. A free internet would mean that consumers of the internet services would benefit from a free access to information concerning products and services of a commercial value. For such a reason, the global entrepreneurship is likely to grow for two reasons. The first is the fact that people would have an increased access to information on business ideas, which includes the manner in which they can manage the business, obtain financing, and other issues that make businesses successful. The second reason is the fact that fair competition in the market for the internet service provision is likely to expand, attracting more companies that would like to offer such products and services. Altogether, entrepreneurship is likely to grow since there would be an indiscriminative price charge by clients, which indicates that the more successful companies would also be the most competitive ones through effective service delivery.
Summary of the Arguments and the Standpoint
Net neutrality is a hot and sensitive topic in the contemporary America and the US for two reasons. One of the reasons considers the essentials of a free market economy, in which the companies offering internet services should be unregulated by governmental policies in their operations. Contrarily, the other side of the divide considers that net neutrality would achieve fairness in the usage of and access to the internet. The single most significant argument staged by opponents of the institution of laws of net neutrality is that the providers of internet services have all the rights to disseminate their services preferentially among their clients because it is a basic right in a free market economy. This argument relates to another one, which compares the companies dealing in the provision of such services and the freedom they have in the provision of their products and services. However, it is needful to consider that while this argument is well-grounded in the theories of economics, it is ignorant of the fact that a free market economy is only a hypothetical scenario. For example, it is not possible for the world to have a free market, one in which there are no regulations whatsoever. While the theories that anti-net neutrality sides put forward in contesting their stand consider that people have enough information about what would be right for them, this notion is implausible. Most consumers of the internet do not have proper information on the billing strategies used by the internet service providers, which is why net neutrality laws should be passed and strengthened in the US and the world over.
Net neutrality is useful in the modern world since it is needful to consider that a free and open internet is a signature invention of the present time, which is why its control should never be granted to a few individuals, the firms that seek to exploit users for their profit motives. Instead, network neutrality would promote the right to information that has emerged as a significant element of the modern world. It should also be considered that net neutrality laws are significant in the promotion of competition among internet service providing companies since they lay down a neutral ground for all internet service providers. Additionally, when the internet is open and free for all people, it is possible that innovation would arise since companies would be motivated to differentiate their products as a means of developing a competitive advantage. Furthermore, net neutrality is significant since if the internet service providers were to be given too much power, they are likely to abuse it. The abuse of power could not only concern the choice to price the products and services as described in the preceding paragraphs of this section, but in the fact that some companies are likely to limit what types of applications the users are likely to be using. Lastly, in a world that has seen a significant rise in entrepreneurship, net neutrality would serve as a means of growing this sector of the global economy. A free internet would mean that consumers of the internet services would benefit from a free access to information concerning products and services of a commercial value. Therefore, it should be the focus of global governments to ensure that they pass net neutrality laws, which would be favorable for the consumers and providers of internet services.
References
Cheng, H. K., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Guo, H. (2011). The debate on net neutrality: A policy perspective. Information systems research , 22 (1), 60-82.
Gordon, W. (2010). An Introduction to Net Neutrality: What It Is, What It Means for You and What You Can Do about It . Retrieved 18 November 2017, from https://lifehacker.com/5720407/an-introduction-to-net-neutrality-what-it-is-what-it-means-for-you-and-what-you-can-do-about-it
Hahn, R. W., & Wallsten, S. (2006). The economics of net neutrality. The Economists' Voice , 3 (6).
Lee, R. S., & Wu, T. (2009). Subsidizing creativity through network design: Zero-pricing and net neutrality. The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 23 (3), 61-76.
Marsden, C. T. (2010). Net neutrality: Towards a co-regulatory solution . A&C Black.
Pil Choi, J., & Kim, B. C. (2010). Net neutrality and investment incentives. The RAND Journal of Economics , 41 (3), 446-471.
Rathnam, L. (2017). What is Net Neutrality and Why Is It Important? Retrieved 18 November 2017, from https://www.cloudwards.net/net-neutrality/
