Against change in Net neutrality

Most tech commenters seem to be in conflict over the issue. There is the other side that are for the regulation though a small minority, they are championing FCC’s speculative move. Logically, when cable companies engage in arguments on net neutrality, they do so in light of self-interest and as such may not be objective in raising their ideas. This paper looks at the top arguments against the proposed curtailing of internet fairness in the name of neutrality principle while on the other hand rebutting the counter-arguments. Introduction Unhindered internet gives us the green light to impart online knowledge without hinderance by making sure that web access suppliers do not discriminate against any information hence limiting the information available to the web user by supplying open systems.

It means that without the rules, ISPs will no longer need to treat internet traffic equally. ISPs will be able to prioritize some websites over others. A large number of the world’s biggest internet data providers led in the protests against the end of internet neutrality. For example, Reddit has to make its logo appear as though it was loading extremely low in order to drive home the message against the proposed net equality. Others like Netflix and Amazon engaged in the protest by adding banners to their homepage indicating their dissatisfaction with the issue (Greenstein et al, 2016). This advantageous position will see large firms be able to strike deals with internet service providers (ISPs) to have their services prioritized over other (Greenstein et al, 2016).

Furthermore, the end of net neutrality sees the end of free speech which would have aided in the war against the new regulations. Many believe that the ISPs would use their powers to disappoint free speech and censor protestors by way of controlling what content people can post online. Net neutrality ensures free expression and that there is no discrimination Once again, the net neutrality principle is the principle of equality in internet data usage. Equality means all senders, recipients and content are treated the same. Net neutrality facilitates privacy of information The principle of net neutrality is set up on the view that all information shared on the internet should be transmitted impartially, regardless of the content, source or destination.

As such any measures to undermine the principle of net neutrality would completely breach privacy. According to the new regulations, internet service providers (ISPs) can limit the information available to users according to whether they pay for it or not and as such they may be required to look into the contents hence breaching confidentiality. Net neutrality promotes competition This is one of the most redeeming points of net neutrality in that it preserves the Darwinian competition argument. Charles Darwin says that for a species to survive then it has to do its best in the survival game. • Content considered hostile would be accessible to all in the name of internet fairness. Researched responses to at least three counterarguments Counterargument Response Net neutrality has kick started an innovative renaissance to T.

V expressions Net neutrality will create two-tier systems All data is not the same as provided in net neutrality It is not right to have a one-size fits-all approach since some are light users of data Internet providers will restrict illegal data Research has revealed that the government spies on its citizens All data is not the same Net neutrality maintains the equal treatment of all data regardless of the origin, destination and so on but this is not really the case. Consider service providers like U-torrent who have experience surges in traffic as they allow their clients to download huge data for free. They do so unlawfully at the expense of owners of this information who require returns from the information they provide.

Therefore, those who support the scrapping of this fundamental internet policy have a strong point but this is to a certain limit. The new policy suggests the creation of tiered internet systems which means that larger data consumers will pay more to enjoy more. On the other hand, low data consumers will only part with a few bucks for their limited consumption. This treatment beats the whole logic of public awareness where the internet service provider classifies the information as worthy more bucks that would have been in the era of net neutrality. This means that information will not have the desired effects but will only be accessible to a few hence affecting decision-making processes. This is not to mean that this demerit of net neutrality beats the merit behind this idea.

The government and internet service providers will be required to monitor content carefully to make sure that the right information goes to the right user. This means that these parties will have to view the contents of the information passing through their serves for them to know where to channel it. This interferes with the privacy of the people hence violating their rights. It should be noted that the interference claimed by the democrats of the recent US polls was due to monitoring information during the election period. P & Kim, B. C (2015). Net neutrality and investment incentives. The Rand Journal of Economics Deng, Xiaotie, Zhe Feng, and Christos H. Papadimitriou. , and Tommaso V. "Net neutrality: A fast lane to understanding the trade-offs.