| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Comment: As I mentioned in the comments below, the heart (and point) of the previous essay WAS the point of view argument, so stripping it of that left it with just a basic overview of network neutrality--which I don't think adds anything to the discussion. |
| |
- Thanks for the prompt comment, professor. Just a quick question--is the problem here just about the way I describe the "current" state of affairs? I stated that "certain types of discriminatory network management may in fact be beneficial, but focus my essay on the potential harms." I use "neutrality" and "net neutrality" loosely in my essay to encompass beneficial and neutral discrimination. Yes, this is a distinction that I admit is misleading and erroneously so, and I'm happy to clarify that in another rewrite. However, I'm confused as to whether there is a deeper flaw going on here. I don't think my paper hinges on neutrality at all; its main point is that there is the potential for social harm in abusive discrimination by ISPs. Please let me know so that I can rewrite appropriately.
|
|
>
> | * Revised. |
| | Net Neutrality and Social Equality
Net Neutrality |
|
<
< | Network neutrality (as applied to the internet) is the idea that the best form of network management is one that treats everyone equally. This means that Internet Service Providers (like AT&T, that provide and control the end user's access to the internet) should not discriminate against certain types of content or access. |
>
> | Network neutrality (as applied to the internet) is the idea that the best form of network management is one that does not exercise "abusive discrimination." By that, I mean discrimination of content or parties that (a) exercises control to shift the balance of the internet toward particular parties, and (b) is specifically intended to extract profits (rather than to enhance the system and its efficacy). Since the concept of network neutrality in fact focuses on the line between abusive and nonabusive discrimination, the term "neutrality" can be misleading (i.e. neither side of that line is neutral in a pure sense). While there might be some that even go as far to say that no discrimination--even that which is beneficial to all parties--should be allowed, my view is that only discrimination of an abusive nature should be curtailed. |
| | Perhaps a simpler way to explain it is to give a couple of examples: |
|
<
< |
- Blocking: In 2005, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that also provides phone services blocked rival internet-based phone services (such as Vonage) in order to increase its business in the telephone sector. Another ISP secretly blocked access to a popular but particularly network-draining application. Blocking might also be used to collect fees from the websites themselves for every time their users access them.
|
>
> |
- Blocking: In 2005, an Internet Service Provider (ISP, a company that provides internet service to the end consumers) that also provides phone services blocked rival internet-based phone services (such as Vonage) in order to increase its business in the telephone sector. Another ISP secretly blocked access to a popular but particularly network-draining application. Blocking might also be used to collect fees from the websites themselves for every time their users access them.
|
| |
- Slow lanes: Another oft-discussed method of discrimination is fast lanes, which involves giving users faster access to certain content (e.g. those that pay an extra fee or those that are owned by the ISP) and thus slower access to the rest.
|
|
>
> |
- Acceptable network management: An example of nonabusive discrimination (for the purposes of a counterexample) is when ISPs give special priority to traffic related to streaming video/audio over standard web browsing. This will enhance the users' experience, since a text website that loads slightly slower is not nearly as much of a nuisance as a movie that is starting and stopping constantly. This can also often be relatively nonabusive, since (a) its sole purpose is network design and management rather than profit, and (b) the balance of the internet has not shifted in any meaningful way.
|
| | |
|
<
< | Given that other websites such as Wikipedia already describe many of the arguments, I will focus this paper on my own. Mainly, that allowing discrimination in network management has the potential to reduce if not erase the internet's role as an equalizing force. I realize that certain types of discriminatory network management may in fact be beneficial, but focus my essay on the potential harms. |
>
> | Given that other websites such as Wikipedia already describe many of the arguments, I will focus this paper on my own. Mainly, that allowing abusive discrimination in network management has the potential to reduce if not erase the internet's role as an equalizing force. |
| | |
|
<
< | The Value of a Neutral Internet |
>
> | The Value of a "Neutral" Internet |
| | |
|
<
< | The internet has tended to be much more empowering for consumers than any other force, and has been able to do so due to net neutrality. |
>
> | The internet has tended to be much more empowering for consumers than any other force, and has been able to do so due to the relatively low level of abusive discrimination thus far. |
| | Consumer Power |
| | People are no longer as isolated and thus vulnerable to the power of larger bodies such as government and large incumbent corporations due to the internet. |
|
<
< | However, from the viewpoint of the ISPs, network discrimination would be most profitable if it favored those larger bodies--they are more organized, wealthy, and powerful than the individual consumers. This is shown by the above examples of discrimination in recent memory, where the discriminatory methods were used to make the internet look and feel less like the internet and more like traditional incumbent-controlled industries. In fact, this is the very reason that those traditional industries look the way they do. |
>
> | However, from the viewpoint of the ISPs, abusive network discrimination would be most profitable if it favored those larger bodies--they are more organized, wealthy, and powerful than the individual consumers. This is shown by the above examples of discrimination in recent memory, where the discriminatory methods were used to make the internet look and feel less like the internet and more like traditional incumbent-controlled industries. In fact, this is the very reason that those traditional industries look the way they do. |
| | Technology's effect on society can vary vastly based on its particular uses--the same technology that might aid and support the lower classes might also be employed to keep them down. The internet and its uses today are far from perfect in this regard, but its overall effect is still positive. Currently, private interests only have undue influence due to their familiarity and popularity, as any third party can still compete at least in terms of access and network infrastructure. However, this may change even without our knowing, with private interests actually using their control over network infrastructure to disrupt the social effects of the internet. |