Pros And Cons Of Network Neutrality
Introduction
Network neutrality means that all content and internet services will be provided to everyone equally. There will be no discrimination on what content is transferred and speed at which they are transferred over the internet. Network neutrality ensures a level playing field for everyone – for all internet activities and websites. Basically, everyone can use as much internet they want by paying the same price and also at a high speed. Network neutrality is a hot topic and there is debate on it. There are some people who favor network neutrality like consumers, government, etc. ON the other hand, ISPs (Internet Service Providers) are against network neutrality. Both parties have their own reasons and hence debate is going on and on.
Are ISPs correct in claiming that network neutrality will limit their development of new technologies?
Internet Service Providers claim that network neutrality will limit their development of new technologies. They want that they charge different prices and offer different speeds for different content. They think that if they prioritize and charge content providers based on what and how much they use then they will have a lot of money. They can use this money to improve infrastructure. They will be able to come up with new technologies and provide faster internet service for all (Cheng, 2008). …show more content…
However, if there is network neutrality then they will not be able to get additional money. If they don’t make profits, they won’t have money to buy new servers and routers and as a result everyone will suffer. This will obviously limit development of new technologies.
I do not completely agree with ISPs claim. I think that network neutrality will not result in limiting the development of new technologies. I think that if there is no network neutrality, then ISPs will be making profits. Because they are making profits, they will not have incentives for investing in new technologies and better infrastructure. They will benefit from internet where some consumers pay more for faster service. Thus, it is the non-neutrality of internet which will limit development of network technologies (Cheng 2008). I think that if there is network neutrality, then it is true that ISPs will not be making much profit but this will actually push them to come up with new technologies which will reduce cost and increase profit for them. Thus, network neutrality will not limit but actually help in development of new technologies in internet.
Are the content providers correct in claiming that eliminating network neutrality will encourage censorship by the ISPs?
The content providers are correct in their claim that eliminating network neutrality will encourage censorship by ISPs. This is because if there is no network neutrality that the ISPs can choose to refuse to transfer any content over the internet. They can block any domain they want to. They can stop any internet traffic from going to a particular website (Hahn & Wallsten 2011). They can, even if they don’t block, reduce the speed which with one can access particular domain or websites. The slowing of speed may result in information loss on the way. ISPs can also try to stop traffic that is going to rival ISPs by blocking those websites. They can also degrade the traffic that is originating from their competitors. All this, will clearly increase the risk of censorship.
Content providers like Netflix are petitioning Congress to somehow regulate this network industry so that the network providers do not adopt strategies similar to that of Comcast. When the network providers are giving the freedom to selectively slow access to certain content or block certain websites, then the risk of censorship will automatically increase. However, it is to be noted that even with network neutrality, network providers can decide not to transfer content if they think that the content is a spam, illegal / fraudulent or is pirated media.
Are the content providers correct in claiming that eliminating network neutrality will result in consumers paying higher prices for the content they watch over internet?
It is expected that eliminating network neutrality will result in consumers paying more for viewing content over internet. This seems to be a reasonable claim from the content providers. When there is non-neutral network then the ISPs would do differential pricing. They will charge lower prices for some content such as e-mail and will charge higher prices for content such as transmission of media files, streaming of videos, etc. With the current needs of people, we know that people have mobile phones and maximum usage is of media files and video streaming. Hence, consumers will end up paying more for the same internet. However, for those consumers who paid the same but did not use internet to transfer media files and all, for them it would be good because they will pay less as they consume less.
With network neutrality, the value created through internet was far greater than the incremental price (Litan & Singer 2007).
This was leading to a lot of consumer surplus. Now, if network neutrality is eliminated then all this consumer surplus will go away because consumers will be paying higher prices. The ISPs will charge consumers based on what they are viewing and how much they can pay. Moreover, if network neutrality is eliminated, then there will be several indirect effects as several companies will not be able to improve their services with slow and costly internet. This will indirectly impact customers (Litan & Singer
2007).
Why is the debate over network neutrality so important?
The debate over network neutrality is extremely important for everyone. It is very important for ISPs because it will determine whether they will be able to make profits or not, whether they will be able to improve technology and invest in infrastructure or not. It is very important for consumers because it will determine if they will have equal access to internet or not. It is crucial because in this fast mobile communications era, people’s requirements of internet usage
Network neutrality means that all content and internet services will be provided to everyone equally. There will be no discrimination on what content is transferred and speed at which they are transferred over the internet. Network neutrality ensures a level playing field for everyone – for all internet activities and websites. Basically, everyone can use as much internet they want by paying the same price and also at a high speed. Network neutrality is a hot topic and there is debate on it. There are some people who favor network neutrality like consumers, government, etc. ON the other hand, ISPs (Internet Service Providers) are against network neutrality. Both parties have their own reasons and hence debate is going on and on.
Are ISPs correct in claiming that network neutrality will limit their development of new technologies?
Internet Service Providers claim that network neutrality will limit their development of new technologies. They want that they charge different prices and offer different speeds for different content. They think that if they prioritize and charge content providers based on what and how much they use then they will have a lot of money. They can use this money to improve infrastructure. They will be able to come up with new technologies and provide faster internet service for all (Cheng, 2008). …show more content…
However, if there is network neutrality then they will not be able to get additional money. If they don’t make profits, they won’t have money to buy new servers and routers and as a result everyone will suffer. This will obviously limit development of new technologies.
I do not completely agree with ISPs claim. I think that network neutrality will not result in limiting the development of new technologies. I think that if there is no network neutrality, then ISPs will be making profits. Because they are making profits, they will not have incentives for investing in new technologies and better infrastructure. They will benefit from internet where some consumers pay more for faster service. Thus, it is the non-neutrality of internet which will limit development of network technologies (Cheng 2008). I think that if there is network neutrality, then it is true that ISPs will not be making much profit but this will actually push them to come up with new technologies which will reduce cost and increase profit for them. Thus, network neutrality will not limit but actually help in development of new technologies in internet.
Are the content providers correct in claiming that eliminating network neutrality will encourage censorship by the ISPs?
The content providers are correct in their claim that eliminating network neutrality will encourage censorship by ISPs. This is because if there is no network neutrality that the ISPs can choose to refuse to transfer any content over the internet. They can block any domain they want to. They can stop any internet traffic from going to a particular website (Hahn & Wallsten 2011). They can, even if they don’t block, reduce the speed which with one can access particular domain or websites. The slowing of speed may result in information loss on the way. ISPs can also try to stop traffic that is going to rival ISPs by blocking those websites. They can also degrade the traffic that is originating from their competitors. All this, will clearly increase the risk of censorship.
Content providers like Netflix are petitioning Congress to somehow regulate this network industry so that the network providers do not adopt strategies similar to that of Comcast. When the network providers are giving the freedom to selectively slow access to certain content or block certain websites, then the risk of censorship will automatically increase. However, it is to be noted that even with network neutrality, network providers can decide not to transfer content if they think that the content is a spam, illegal / fraudulent or is pirated media.
Are the content providers correct in claiming that eliminating network neutrality will result in consumers paying higher prices for the content they watch over internet?
It is expected that eliminating network neutrality will result in consumers paying more for viewing content over internet. This seems to be a reasonable claim from the content providers. When there is non-neutral network then the ISPs would do differential pricing. They will charge lower prices for some content such as e-mail and will charge higher prices for content such as transmission of media files, streaming of videos, etc. With the current needs of people, we know that people have mobile phones and maximum usage is of media files and video streaming. Hence, consumers will end up paying more for the same internet. However, for those consumers who paid the same but did not use internet to transfer media files and all, for them it would be good because they will pay less as they consume less.
With network neutrality, the value created through internet was far greater than the incremental price (Litan & Singer 2007).
This was leading to a lot of consumer surplus. Now, if network neutrality is eliminated then all this consumer surplus will go away because consumers will be paying higher prices. The ISPs will charge consumers based on what they are viewing and how much they can pay. Moreover, if network neutrality is eliminated, then there will be several indirect effects as several companies will not be able to improve their services with slow and costly internet. This will indirectly impact customers (Litan & Singer
2007).
Why is the debate over network neutrality so important?
The debate over network neutrality is extremely important for everyone. It is very important for ISPs because it will determine whether they will be able to make profits or not, whether they will be able to improve technology and invest in infrastructure or not. It is very important for consumers because it will determine if they will have equal access to internet or not. It is crucial because in this fast mobile communications era, people’s requirements of internet usage