Network Neutrality

SHOULD NETWORK NEURALITY CONTINUE? DRAFT SUMMARY This case study from the beginning wanted to know the kind of internet use the reader is and how their usage is affecting the bandwidth making it slow down the entire internet. It went further to discuss reports which indicated that use demand for the internet could outspace network capacity by 2011 which would result in slow performance on websites such as youtube and facebook with other services. The debate about metering internet use centres was also raised.
Network neutrality which is the idea of internet service providers allowing customers equal access to content and applications regardless of the source or nature of the content was the key issue discussed in this case study. It brought to the fore the fact that presently the internet is indeed neutral because it was built on phone lines, which are subject to common carriage laws. These laws require phone companies to treat all calls and customers equally. Which means that they cannot offer extra benefits to customers willing to pay higher premiums for faster or clearer calls.
Due to bandwidth consumed by content being delivered over the internet, Telecom and cable companies want to be able to charge differentiated prices. Advocates of net neutrality are pushing congress to regulate the industry which would require network providers to refrain from these types of practices. Some companies report that 5 percent of their customers use about half the capacity on local lines without paying any more than low-usage customers. They state that metered pricing is “the fairest way” to finance necessary investments in its network infrastructure.

Internet service providers point to the upsurge in piracy of copyrighted materials over the Internet as a reason to oppose network neutrality. Comcast reported that illegal file sharing of copyrighted material was consuming 50 percent of its network capacity. The company posits that if network transmission rates were slower for this type of content, users would be less likely to download or access it. Bob Kahn, another co-inventor of the Internet Protocol opposes network neutrality saying that it removes the incentive for network providers to innovate, provide new capabilities, and upgrade to new technology.
ANSWERS 1. What is network neutrality? Why has the Internet operated under net neutrality up to this point in time? Network neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers must allow customers equal access to content and applications regardless of the source or nature of the content. Presently the Internet is indeed neutral: all Internet traffic is treated equally on a first-come, first-serve basis by Internet backbone owners.
The Internet is neutral because it was built on phone lines, which are subject to ‘common carriage’ laws. Common Carrier law reflects a business principle that strives to avoid discrimination in a wide range of commercial practices. These laws require phone companies to treat all calls and customers equally. They cannot offer extra benefits to customers willing to pay higher premiums for faster or clearer calls, a model knows as tiered service. 2. Who’s in favor of network neutrality? Who’s opposed? Why? Organizations like MoveOn. rg, the Christian Coalition, the American Library Association, every major consumer group, many bloggers and small businesses, and some large Internet companies like Google and Amazon are in favour and supports network neutrality. Vint Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and some members of the U. S. Congress also support network neutrality . This group argues that the risk of censorship increases when network operators can selectively block or slow access to certain content. Others are concerned about the effect of slower transmission rates on their business models if users can’t download or access content in a speedy fashion.
Telecommunications and cable companies are largely opposed to network neutrality and want to be able to charge differentiated prices based on the amount of bandwidth consumed by content being delivered over the Internet. Some companies report that 5 percent of their customers use about half the capacity on local lines without paying any more than low-usage customers. They state that metered pricing is “the fairest way” to finance necessary investments in its network infrastructure. Internet service providers point to the upsurge in piracy of copyrighted materials over the Internet as a reason to oppose network neutrality.
Comcast reported that illegal file sharing of copyrighted material was consuming 50 percent of its network capacity. The company posits that if network transmission rates were slower for this type of content, users would be less likely to download or access it. Bob Kahn, another co-inventor of the Internet Protocol opposes network neutrality saying that it removes the incentive for network providers to innovate, provide new capabilities, and upgrade to new technology. 3. What would be the impact on individual users, businesses, and government if Internet providers switched to a tiered service model?
It has been argued by proponents of net neutrality that a neutral Internet encourages everyone to innovate without permission from the phone and cable companies or other authorities. A more level playing field spawns countless new businesses. Allowing unrestricted information flow becomes essential to free markets and democracy as commerce and society increasingly move online. Heavy users of network bandwidth would pay higher prices without necessarily experiencing better service. Even those who use less bandwidth could run into the same situation.
Network owners believe regulation like the bills proposed by net neutrality advocates will impede U. S. competitiveness by stifling innovation and hurt customers who will benefit from ‘discriminatory’ network practices. U. S. Internet service already lags behind other nations in overall speed, cost, and quality of service, adding credibility to the providers’ arguments. Obviously, by increasing the cost of heavy users of network bandwidth, telecommunication and cable companies and Internet service providers stand to increase their profit margins. 4. Are you in favor of legislation enforcing network neutrality?
Why or why not? WHY Innovation and Creativity are the Heart of Net Neutrality The Internet has grown at a phenomenal pace since its beginnings in the early 1990’s, and this growth is largely in part due to the protections and freedoms that net neutrality affords. Groundbreaking ideas and innovative products such as Google, eBay, YouTube, and torrents have gotten to where they are today because of net neutrality, and there are literally thousands of new start-ups, online stores, and simple ecommerce sites that start every day with the same chance to make it big. Net neutrality encourages creative expression.
For example, a lecturer talking to weekend MBA students via podcast. Without net neutrality, this opportunity would be limited at best, and completely throttled at worst. Net Neutrality Provides a Competitive Marketplace Most people have access to only one, perhaps two ISPs (Internet Service Providers) in their local area. If net neutrality were to be revoked, these ISPs would have the authority to regulate Internet access, and since the consumer would most likely be unable to choose a different service provider, that access would be defined according to their discrimination. WHY NOT
Tiered Access Could Make For A Better Internet Net neutrality, if legislated would affect Internet Service providers who believe in the tiered access. That is paying for different levels of Internet service. This could pay for more sophisticated infrastructure, which would benefit all the users of that network. Their argument postulates that large companies could afford to pay higher fees for Internet access, which would in turn finance network improvements, which would eventually trickle down to the average Web user. Control Legislation would actually control commonplace safety practices and loopholes for unethical exploits.