10/29/2017 0 Comments Reading 09: Net NeutralityFrom the readings, what exactly is Net Neutrality? Explain in your own words the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers and governments regulating most of the internet must treat all data on the Internet the same and not discriminate or charge deferentially by user, content, website, platform, application, attached equipment, or method of communication. In other words, the only thing that matters is the amount of data, provided that the data and services being used are legal. The presence of net neutrality allows for startups to supplant established sites and companies on the internet because they can’t monopolize it. Net Neutrality allows for fairer competition, and its absence would give favor to larger, more powerful companies. The FCC and the communications are both pushing against net neutrality, but that’s no surprise being that a great number of FCC officials come from careers in these communication companies (and presumably still have interests and partnerships there). Some popular reasons against net neutrality include, but are not limited to, that it: - Discourages investment - Burdens small businesses with more processes - Is good for the consumer These reasons have holes, and ultimately boil down to some corporate tomfoolery and sleight of hand. Overall investment is up, per the FCC, and there are a number of executives on record saying to their investors that net neutrality and Title II won’t negatively affect their investments. Small businesses (ISPs) do have to cover a couple more things to comply to it, but this can be solved through an allowance or tax break rather than revoking net neutrality and Title II entirely. The FCC has already taken steps to accommodate any businesses burdened by its regulations, so this isn’t an unreasonable idea, and it still allows for proper net neutrality. The reason they say it’s better for consumers is because there’s a possibility that certain services would be selected to no longer count towards data bandwidth caps. However, the excluded services would be selected by ISPs, whose ultimate goal is to make money. What interest would they have to exclude streaming services that would make them the most money? Little to none. I am strongly for net neutrality and believe that the prices we pay for internet can only increase (despite how expensive it already is) while the quality of service can only decrease (despite how poor it already is, see: Comcast) if they set their own rules more than they already do. If you are in favor of Net Neutrality, explain how you would implement or enforce it. How would you respond to concerns about possible over-regulation, burdening corporations, or preventing innovation? I’m in favor of net neutrality. We currently have it as is, and I think that we could continue enforcing it as we have. We’re weary of companies slowing down speeds as they see fit, cracking down as needed. As a consumer, we can be sure that it’s been better as it is compared to how it would likely be if it were removed. It doesn’t burden small corporations as explained above, and it doesn’t harm large ISPs in any way other than preventing further monopolization of the market. In either case, discuss whether or not you consider that "the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right". Additionally, do you have trust in an unbridled free market or does the government have a role to play in ensuring a level playing field? I do believe that the internet, in one capacity or another, should be able to be used by all. I think that to access it on a personal device that you need to be able to pay for that device and for the service (as one pays for water or electricity). But I also think that internet access should remain publicly possible through a public library or some equivalent substitute. I do think that the government should have a role in the interaction of the economy, because if too much power were to swing in the favor of any powerful and necessary party (corporate or government), it could be difficult to counter issues arising from that.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorNikolas Dean Brooks is a current Senior at Notre Dame. This blog is for the "Ethics and Professional Issues" course under Dr. Peter Bui. Archives |