Net Neutrality Debate Analysis

Network neutrality refers to the principle that all the legal content in the public internet should be treated equally by the internet service providers alongside other responsible agencies. Stover (2010) defined net neutrality as, “a concept that suggests ISPs or other users access networks should not advocate restrictions or regulations on the content, specific sites or internet platform.” In this case, the internet service providers should not give preference to any kind of the data irrespective of its type, the site, the network carrying it or the end user. Net Neutrality began in the late 1990s. This was after there was the implementation of mechanisms that were viewed to be against the end to end design philosophy of the internet.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

Perspectives in Favor of Net Neutrality

Those in favor of the net neutrality hold that there should be no gatekeepers to control the internet. They argue that the success of the application of content should solely depend on the user’s interest and thus no need of having intermediaries. They also argue that being the platform of innovation internet controlling the information being shared over the internet may negatively affect the innovative nature of the internet (Gharakheili, 2017).

From Wu (2003), perspective, allowing the internet service providers (ISPs) to control the internet traffic and make a decision of the traffic to be given faster speed is a kind of discrimination on the internet. Again giving the ISPs that role may make the internet companies to be tempted to pay the ISPs for favors thus killing competition and innovation in the internet market.

Those opposing the net neutrality advocate for quality of service which would allow preferential treatment of the websites. However, opponents argue that it is better to increase bandwidth across the network as it is cheaper than the quality of the service system. Proponents of the net neutrality also believe that embracing the QoS system only allows some website to arrive faster than other but create no improvements on the internet. In this case, only the websites that pay well are given priority, and those that do not pay may end up being blocked by the ISP (Garrett, Dustdar, Bona, & Duarte, 2017)

Unlike other telecommunication industries, if controlled, the network operators can interfere with innovation and competition in the vertical market. Furthermore, for true competition to take place, consumers need to be set free to select content which is only applicable in an open network. Net neutrality regulations should require the ISPs to be transparent and should have the ability to prevent discrimination (Stover, 2010)

Another perspective in favor of net neutrality is that, if net neutrality is not implemented, then future entrepreneurs may be discouraged to join the market. This might further affect the competitiveness of the internet market in the long run. Furthermore, introducing the payment structure in the internet market will only make the internet to be like the controlled media that currently exist. In this case, the ISPs will be the ones to control what the customers have to access on the internet (Wallsten & Hausladen, 2009).

Another factor considered by the proponents of the net neutrality rules is that without the rules, the ISP may have an incentive to promote non-competitive behavior that may affect the competition in the network market. For instance, a broadband provider offering its videos may be tempted to degrade service of quality of another company offering similar products. The proponents argue that although there are the anti-trust laws to deal with such occasions, they are not sufficient as the proceedings are usually very slow (Wallsten & Hausladen, 2009).

Perspectives against Net Neutrality

According to Stover (2010), most of those opposing net neutrality is the for-profit manufactures of the telecommunication equipment, telecommunication companies, and some politicians. The internet service providers hold that websites usually benefit for using their services for free yet some services such as the multiplayer gaming require faster response time thus the need for changing the system. The opposes also believe that net neutrality will hinder development on the internet as providers may find it difficult to provide better and more improved services. The updated internet is believed to have better security measures which would prevent attacks from warms and viruses as compared to net neutrality where anything can be accessed by the users including viruses without any control (Stover, 2010).

The opponents argue that the net neutrality regulations will make it difficult to manage traffic which will result in overloaded traffic thus delaying some websites as well as applications. However, by allowing the ISP to monitor and control the content, it would be possible to favor information that is important and that may be required urgently. Moreover, giving the ISPs to have control over the content, it would be possible to block some harmful content like the warms and the viruses. The net neutrality negatively affects both the service model and the pricing on the internet. With the regulation in place, it is not possible to guarantee the delivery quality of some services such as the medical monitoring which may be charged a premium price for better quality. Therefore, this denies customers of the premium services that they may require (Stover, 2010).

Those against net neutrality are concerned that, by treating all traffic the same and discouraging pricing structure, internet service providers will be discouraged to invest more in the network infrastructure as the return is less. Furthermore, there is also fear that the regulations may not be effective due to the complexity of the internet and the fact that it keeps on changing (Greenstein, Peitz, & Valletti, 2016).

The opponents also argue that the net neutrality rules are not necessary as they are likely to facilitate the insufficient use of the existing network infrastructure. Further, they are likely to hinder new investments in the network. Though hurting the utility of some applications, net neutrality is likely to hinder innovation; especially for the applications that require real-time connections such as the telemedicine applications (Krämer, Wiewiorra, & Weinhardt, 2013).

Personal Perspective on Net Neutrality

From my perspective, net neutrality should be allowed. The main reason for this is to ensure that both internet service providers and the content providers benefit without hurting the other. In this case, if packet discrimination is allowed, then the internet service providers will benefit more than the content providers as they are more flexible. Furthermore, packet discrimination will make it difficult to establish new internet firms as they will not be able to conquer the already existing firms and content innovation will be hindered.net neutrality is necessary for fair competition in the internet market and allows the consumers to enjoy their freedom of choice of the content they want to view in the internet.