Net neutrality is a design paradigm that has been used in the United States to protect the internet users. It argues that the network providers should be detached entirely from the information they are sending to their clients. Therefore, at no point should a given web information be given priority over the other. The policy implies that information networks are more important and useful to their users when it gives no focus on one issue over the other. In addition, the neutral network can be designed without prodding into any legality. The Internet is an interconnection of computers, allowing them to share information. They depend on common public protocols. Due to this a number of services are providing on internet; browser interfaces, email servers, and Google databases among others. Some of the services on the internet are normally quite confidential and private that need not to leak even to the service providers (Cook 48).
The Net Neutrality paradigm tries as much as possible to mitigate paying of any fees by the net users. For instance, a family should enjoy downloading of a movie at the same speed and quality just like the students downloading a class contents. Following this, the primary purpose of use of internet and its information shouldn’t affect the speed, cost and quality of the network provision (Welch 2). The policy of net neutrality and open Internet are words that are used synonymously. This concept has made internet available for the public, a fact that has led to innumerable innovations, as well as business ideas. Although a number of states practice strict web censorship, the case is different in US, where internet building is by use of publicly free available standards. The open Internet allows the internet to be accessed by everyone without restriction. Net neutrality ensures a clear pathway for all the web users is provided to ensure uniform flow in terms of quality and speed of the internet connections.
Through this policy, it has been made possible for any person to build an application, innovate any technology and communicate freely and in modern manners and do blog. Additionally net neutrality has also enabled secure electronic mailing, gaming, online shopping and video streaming. The historical developments on net neutrality can attribute to the efforts of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Since time in memorial, FCC has focused its efforts on ensuring that every American citizen gets access to a robust and open high-speed internet and broadband services. The FCC body has successfully managed the concept of open internet access while guarding the United States’ government against any regulation or interference related to the development of web-based content and its delivery (Cook 46).
Graph 1. Growth of the Netflix US Subscribers Jan 2012- Apr 2013 (Courtesy of Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin)
The fundamental rule of this policy was to promote a no discrimination type of internet connection. Some have argued that the idea of net neutralism has been around ever since 1800 during the telegraph’s age; “message received from any company, person or corporation or any other telegraph connecting to this line shall be transmitted impartially as they come. However, the government’s telegraphs that require emergency shall be given priority.” (Cook 47) Therefore, the telegraphs were being sent in order at which they occur and not subject to discrimination. This point, therefore, proves that net neutrality is not a policy of the new century, but an idea that came into existence as early as the 19th century. The 2014 appeal of the FCC role in open internet marked a turning point in the whole idea of net neutralism. The court gave a ruling that the FCC was supposed drop its rules on the open internet. The decision opened a door for the Internet service providers to start charging for any tiered service level.
Graph 2. Percentage change in Netflix download speed (Courtesy of Americas Telecommunications Insight)
Until January of 2014, FCC’s oversight function in the control of the internet was guided by three main paradigms. The first paradigm was that the internet service provider (ISP) must practice disclosure of the information that relates to the management of their network, its quality, speed and costs. Secondly, the ISPs had no authority to block lawful content applications and websites that are not harmful to the public. In addition, the second paradigm stated the ISPs were not allowed to block any website on the basis of competing with any company’s telephone service or voice. For example, any provider offering video conferencing services had no right to block other applications like Google Hangout or Skype (Cook 49). The last paradigm of January’s policy states that no ISP is allowed to discriminate against any lawful Internet user due to the content of internet user. The net neutrality didn't originate either is it limited to only a given network. Therefore, the principle applies to all the network providers and user who do online activities from day to day.
The change had an immense impact on most sectors, notably the education sector where teachers and students virtually attend classes in the web world; they get literature for teaching and also depend on the net for learning (Sasso 13). The withdrawal of the net neutralism meant that the approach of pay-per-view would be adopted to control school and home access to some sources of information. Tentatively, this could mean that the content would only become available on some pre-chosen websites that suffer restriction to a given network. It could also mean that the school libraries that also run their services online had to pay additional maintenance fees in order to share their database. Additionally the impact of the ruling could mean that for the facilitator to play even a YouTube, he/she must provide his credit card credentials for charges deduction. Therefore, it is no doubt that these services would change the access to online learning, sharing of information and research.
Graph 3. Number of internet users per 100 inhabitants (Courtesy ofthe Economic Times)
The reforms on the net neutralism also meant that the possibility of innovation, sharing of applications and business was at stake. Since the premium services are only affordable to the abled entities only, the ideas of the low-class entities had no platform for transformation. This type of detrimental effect on innovation and development would limit internet by individuals either in education, to communicate or to do transactions and businesses (Soman 6). This kind of reform would lead to a significant rift in education between the middle and the high socio-economic classes. Therefore finding a solution to such a detrimental issue would not be that easy, but will ensure equity of internet among the net users. Due to the withdrawal of the open internet, a lot of debates and discussions have been organized in the attempt of getting a way forward. Therefore, the various stakeholders such as the educators and business persons are urged to share their thoughts on the same issue through such debates, discussions, and forums.
Graph 4. Demand Supply curve for net Users in USA (Courtesy of Americas Telecommunications Insight)
In conclusion, it is quite true that a number of the public fear any government regulation if what is happening with net neutrality is the reality. The presence of the telecommunication oligopolies has tried to prove that the market is likely to hurt the consumers should the government fail to intervene. The tiering of the internet would mean that censorship and stalking practices by the internet service providers are gradually creeping in. Therefore, it is upon the government to come out and save the public from the looming exorbitant internet service providers. Should the tiering of the internet continue, the public should expect the loss to the internet users (Americas Telecommunications Insight9).
Works Cited
Americas Telecommunications Insight - May 2015. London: Business Monitor International, 2015:9.
Soman, Sandhya. "Net Neutrality: Net Activism Packs a Punch Internet]." The Economic Times (Online) Apr 20 2015:6.
Welch, Matt. "The Net Neutrality Riddle." Reason 05 2015: 2, 2, 4.
Sasso, Brendan. Obama Eager to Hammer Republicans on Net Neutrality. Washington: Atlantic Media, Inc, 2014: 13.
Cook, Vickie S. "Net Neutrality: What is it and why should Educators Care?" Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 80.4 (2014): 46-9.
