The Net neutrality principle states a few things regarding how the internet shou

Question

The Net neutrality principle states a few things regarding how the internet should be organized. Given the four frameworks to ethical decision making... For each framework give the best possible argument in favour of Net neutrality and the best possible argument against. You can support your arguments with data and reterencing external data sources by adding http links. Assume all missing information. 1. Framework Reason/s in favour Reasons against 2. Framework - Reasons in favour Reasons against 3. Framework - Reasons in favour - Reasons against 4. Framework - Reasons in favour Reasons against

Explanation / Answer

1] Framework1 :-

IN FAVOUR :- Net neutrality is the principle that governments should inforce Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.

    Under an "open Internet" schema, the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it should be easily accessible to all individuals, companies, and organizations.

Proponents of net neutrality see this as an important component of an "open Internet", wherein policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those using the Internet to easily communicate, and conduct business and activities without interference from a third party.

Google published a statement in 2008 about net nutrality.
against letting internet service providers abuse their market potential to affect access to competing applications or content.
then they compare situation to that of the telephony market, where telephone companies are not allowed to control custemers who they call or what those customers are allowed to say.
However, Google's favouraism of net neutrality was came in picture in 2014. Several civil rights groups, such as the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press are fighting for the Future support of net neutrality.

Digital rights and freedoms

frontiers of net neutrality argue that a neutral net will foster free speech and lead to further democratic participation on the Internet. Former Senator Al Franken from Minnesota fears that without new regulations, the major Internet Service Providers will use their position of power to stifle people’s rights. it should ensuring that all people and websites have equal access to each other, regardless of their ability to pay, proponents of net neutrality wish to prevent the need to pay for speech and the further centralization of media power. Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, fostering democratic communication. Lessig and McChesney go on to argue that the monopolization of the Internet would stifle the diversity of independent news sources and the generation of innovative and novel web content.

AGAINST :-

In contrast, a "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, wherein established persons, corporations, or governments favor certain uses, restrict access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. Some countries block certain websites or types of sites, and monitor and/or censor Internet use using Internet police, a specialized type of law enforcement, or secret police.

Significant and growing competition, investment

A 2010 paper on net neutrality by Nobel Prize economist Gary Becker and his colleagues stated that "there is significant and growing competition among broadband access providers and that few significant competitive problems have been observed to date, suggesting that there is no compelling competitive rationale for such regulation". Becker and fellow economists Dennis Carlton and Hal Sidler found that "Between mid-2002 and mid-2008, the number of high-speed broadband access lines in the United States grew from 16 million to nearly 133 million, and the number of residential broadband lines grew from 14 million to nearly 80 million. Internet traffic roughly tripled between 2007 and 2009. At the same time, prices for broadband Internet access services have fallen sharply." The PPI reports that the profit margins of U.S. broadband providers are generally one-sixth to one-eighth of companies that use broadband (such as Apple or Google), contradicting the idea of monopolistic price-gouging by providers.[208]

When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler defined again broadband from 4 Mbit/s to 25 Mbit/s (3.125 MB/s) or greater in January 2015, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O'Reilly believed the redefinition was to set up the agency's intent to settle the net neutrality fight with new regulations.

A report by the Progressive Policy Institute in June 2014 argues that nearly every American can choose from at least 5-6 broadband Internet service providers, despite claims that there are only a "small number" of broadband providers. Citing research from the FCC, the Institute wrote that 90 percent of American households have access to at least one wired and one wireless broadband provider at speeds of at least 4 Mbit/s (500 kbyte/s) downstream and 1 Mbit/s (125 kbyte/s) upstream and that nearly 88 percent of Americans can choose from at least two wired providers of broadband disregarding speed (typically choosing between a cable and telco offering). Further, three of the four national wireless companies report that they offer 4G LTE to 250–300 million Americans, with the fourth (T-Mobile) sitting at 209 million and counting. Similarly, the FCC reported in June 2008 that 99.8% of ZIP codes in the United States had two or more providers of high speed Internet lines available, and 94.6% of ZIP codes had four or more providers, as reported by University of Chicago economists Gary Becker, Dennis Carlton, and Hal Sider in a 2010 paper.

2] framework 2

In favour :-

Control of data
people who are in support of net neutrality in the World want to designate cable companies as common carriers compaanies, which would require them to allow Internet service providers (ISPs) free access to cable lines and dial-up Internet.
They want to ensure that cable companies cannot seen, interrupt or filter Internet content without a court(law inforcement) order.
SaveTheInternet.com sued cable and telecommunications companies of wanting the role of watchman, being able to control which websites load quickly, load slowly, or do not load.
According to SaveTheInternet.com these companies want to charge content providers who require guaranteed speedy data delivery – to create advantages for their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video services – and slowing access or blocking access to those of competitors.

net nutrality supporters concludes that the principles responsible for making the Internet such a success would be fundamentally undermined were broadband carriers given the ability to affect what people see and do online. they has also written about the importance of looking at problems like Net Neutrality through a combination of the Internet's layered system and the multistakeholder model that governs it

Against : -

Unnecessary regulations

Federal Communication Commissioner Ajit Pai, who was one of the two commissioners who opposed the net neutrality proposal, criticized the FCC's ruling on Internet neutrality, stating that the perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they dislike are non-existent: "The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it's all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later.

ax Levchin, the other co-founder of PayPal, stated similar statements,to CNBC reporter that, "The Internet is not broken, and it got here without government regulation and probably in part because of lack of government regulation."
Opponents of new federal net neutrality policies point to the success of the Internet as a sign that new regulations are not necessary.
They argue that the freedom which websites, ISPs and consumers have had to settle their own disputes and compete through innovation is the reason why the Internet has been such a rapid success.

3 ] Framework 3

IN FAVOURS :-

eliminating Internet standards

Net neutrality supporters have sponsored legislation claimed that authorizing incumbent network providers to override transport and application layer separation on the Internet would resultsin decline of fundamental Internet standards and international consensus authority.
Further, the legislation asserts that bit-shaping the transport of application data will undermine the transport layer's designed flexibility.

Against :-

server-side non-neutrality

the people who against the net nutrality saying that the Internet is already not a level playing field, that large companies achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by providing more and better-quality servers and buying high-bandwidth services.
Should scrapping of net neutrality regulations precipitate a price drop for lower levels of access, or access to only certain protocols, for instance, such would make Internet usage more adaptable to the needs of those individuals and corporations who specifically seek differentiated tiers of service.
Network expert Richard Bennett has written, "A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental inequality."

4] Framework 4

IN FAVOUR :-

User intolerance for slow-loading sites
Users with faster internet connectivity (e.g., fiber) abandon a slow-loading video at a faster rate than users with slower Internet connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile).
Proponents of net neutrality invoke the human psychological process of adaptation where when people get used to something better, they would not ever want to go back to something worse. In the context of the Internet, the proponents argue that a user who gets used to the "fast lane" on the Internet would find the "slow lane" intolerable in comparison, greatly disadvantaging any provider who is unable to pay for the "fast lane". Video providers Netflix and Vimeo in their comments to FCC in favor of net neutrality use the research of S.S. Krishnan and Ramesh Sitaraman that provides the first quantitative evidence of adaptation to speed among online video users. Their research studied the patience level of millions of Internet video users who waited for a slow-loading video to start playing. Users who had a faster Internet connectivity, such as fiber-to-the-home, demonstrated less patience and abandoned their videos sooner than similar users with slower Internet connectivity. The results demonstrate how users can get used to faster Internet connectivity, leading to higher expectation of Internet speed, and lower tolerance for any delay that occurs. Author Nicholas Carr and other social commentators have written about the habituation phenomenon by stating that a faster flow of information on the Internet can make people less patient.

AGAINST :-

Reduction in investment

Opponents say that net neutrality would make it more difficult for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks. John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of Verizon, a broadband and telecommunications company, has argued that they will have no incentive to make large investments to develop advanced fibre-optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies that wish to take advantage of the expanded capabilities of such networks. Thorne and other ISPs have accused Google and Skype of freeloading or free riding for using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build. Marc Andreessen states that "a pure net neutrality view is difficult to sustain if you also want to have continued investment in broadband networks. If you’re a large telco right now, you spend on the order of $20 billion a year on capex [capital expenditure]. You need to know how you’re going to get a return on that investment. If you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a company like Netflix anything, you’re not ever going to get a return on continued network investment — which means you’ll stop investing in the network. And I would not want to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now with the same broadband speeds we’re getting today.The White House reported in June 2013 that U.S. connection speeds are "the fastest compared to other countries with either a similar population or land mass". Akamai's report on "The State of the Internet" in the 2nd quarter of 2014 says "a total of 39 states saw 4K readiness rate more than double over the past year". In other words, as ZDNet reports, those states saw a "major" increase in the availability of the 15Mbit/s speed needed for 4K video. According to the Progressive Policy Institute and ITU data, the United States has the most affordable entry-level prices for fixed broadband in the OECD.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.