. [20 points] In the ethics and societal consequences portion of the course, we
ID: 3768813 • Letter: #
Question
. [20 points] In the ethics and societal consequences portion of the course, we considered the issue of net neutrality.
3.1. What is meant by net neutrality?
3.2. Is net neutrality an engineering issue, a computer science issue, or is it an issue of business and control? A simple selection from this list is not a sufficient answer; explain your reasoning.
3.3. In terms of the ACM Code of Ethics, is net neutrality required by the Code or is it merely consistent with the code? Explain and justify your answer.
Explanation / Answer
1) Net nuetrality:
Def : the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.
Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.
Net neutrality
Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is that a public information network will end up being most useful if all content, sites, and platforms are treated equally.A more detailed proposed definition of technical and service network neutrality suggests that service network neutrality is the adherence to the paradigm that operation of a service at a certain layer is not influenced by any data other than the data interpreted at that layer, and in accordance with the protocol specification for that layer.
Open Internet
The idea of an open Internet is the idea that the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it are easily accessible to all individuals and companies. This often includes ideas such as net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is seen by some as closely related to open-source software.
Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.A closed Internet refers to the opposite situation, in which established persons, corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.
2)
Net neutrality has historically been sacrosanct because of the original peer-based nature of the Internet. In its early days, the Internet was a "patchwork of communities coming together with the intention of serving each other cooperatively," said Andrew von Nagy, a network engineer and a technology evangelist for a wireless infrastructure vendor. "The varied parties all had an interest in making the Internet work well.
"But the dynamics underneath the Internet have shifted," he continued. "We have gone toward a content consumption kind of society as opposed to the early days of the Internet when it was much more peer-to-peer, [when] it was mutually beneficial for all parties involved not to inhibit the growth of the Internet. We are seeing a lot more one-way traffic flow from content creators down to consumers, and we're seeing the dynamics of the underlying economy of the Internet shift. Now it's not mutually beneficial for everybody to just cooperatively work together. There are distinct differences and competition over who has control over different parts of the Internet. Broadband ISPs, who face very little competition, wield a lot more control and have more ability to wring money out of the system than content creators who have much more competition."
If the Internet is a utility and the economic forces that kept the Internet open are changing, should the federal government step in to protect that openness? The FCC's former chairman, Michael Powell, sent the country down a path of uncertainty when he declined to apply common-carrier (i.e. utility) status to ISPs under Title II of the 1934 Federal Communications Act. That decision weakened the FCC's ability to regulate the Internet and enforce Net neutrality. The FCC's previous attempt to enforce Net neutrality was struck down by a U.S. appellate court because of the common carrier issue.
For much of the internet’s history the network has been neutral by default, thanks to its technical rules, which are blind to the type of data being handled. This more than anything explains the disruptive (and Darwinian) power of the internet: network operators could not play favourites among the packets of data they were transmitted, and startups didn’t have to ask them for permission to build innovative services. But new technologies, like the inelegantly named “deep packet inspection” (DPI), now allow network operators to identify what kind of traffic they are funnelling through. At the same time new forms of traffic are increasing in importance and generating calls for better traffic management: Netflix, the video-streaming service, now accounts for a third of peak traffic in America, for example. To handle this data flood, telecoms firms say, they need to build bigger pipes and charge the likes of Netflix to use them.
Most observers agree that in some form or another the concept of neutrality with respect to data should be enshrined in law. But they cannot agree on the exceptions to the rule. Network-neutrality purists insist that there should be none. Rent-seeking network operators would exploit any loopholes, they argue, and rather than investing in DPI or such things, telcos should simply add capacity. Others are not so sure, and would accept several exceptions: emergency and health services, for instance, should always enjoy priority. Some wonder why exactly bandwidth-hungry offerings such as Netflix should get a free ride. Unsurprisingly, positions in the debate are often based on interests and ideology. Producers of digital content, for instance, often argue in favour of strict network-neutrality rules, which make distributing their wares easier. Libertarians think the internet, as most other things, should simply be left alone.
Net Neutrality opponents are working everywhere from Congress to the courts to dismantle or undermine the FCC’s Title II classification. In the wake of the February ruling, 10 lawsuits designed to gut Net Neutrality have been filed (Free Press has jumped in to defend the rules) and legislators have introduced numerous deceptive bills that would demolish these protections. Most recently, the attack in Congress has come from the appropriations committees. Both the House and Senate committees have passed bills containing riders that would sabotage the Net Neutrality rules.
Net Neutrality is crucial for small business owners, startups and entrepreneurs, who rely on the open Internet to launch their businesses, create a market, advertise their products and services, and distribute products to customers. We need the open Internet to foster job growth, competition and innovation.
Net Neutrality lowers the barriers of entry for entrepreneurs, startups and small businesses by ensuring the Web is a fair and level playing field. It’s because of Net Neutrality that small businesses and entrepreneurs have been able to thrive on the Internet. They use the Internet to reach new customers and showcase their goods, applications and services.
No company should be able to interfere with this open marketplace. ISPs are by definition the gatekeepers to the Internet, and without Net Neutrality, they would seize every possible opportunity to profit from that gatekeeper control.
Without Net Neutrality, the next Google would never get off the ground.
Given this cacophony, it comes as no surprise that only three countries—Chile, the Netherlands and Slovenia—have so far passed strict network-neutrality laws, whereas most others have opted for softer rules. And it is unlikely that the principle will ever be set in stone: as technology and digital markets change, so will the definition of neutrality. In America the FCC's decision certainly will not end the debate. Lobbying has already begun over how the new rules, whose details have yet to be made public, should be interpreted. And big broadband access providers, such as AT&T and Verizon, are sure to sue: they could live with network-neutrality requirements, but hate the idea that their internet business should be regulated in the same way as their plain-old telephone service
3)
Commitment to ethical professional conduct is expected of every member (voting members, associate members, and student members) of the Association for Computing Machinery.
This Code, consisting of 24 imperatives formulated as statements of personal responsibility, identifies the elements of such a commitment. It contains many, but not all, issues professionals are likely to face.Section 1 outlines fundamental ethical considerations, while Section 2 addresses additional, more specific considerations of professional conduct. Statements in Section 3 pertain more specifically to individuals who have a leadership role, whether in the workplace or in a volunteer capacity such as with organizations like ACM. Principles involving compliance with this Code are given in Section4.
The Code shall be supplemented by a set of Guidelines, which provide explanation to assist members in dealing with the various issues contained in the Code. It is expected that the Guidelines will be changed more frequently than the Code.
The Code and its supplemented Guidelines are intended to serve as a basis for ethical decision making in the conduct of professional work. Secondarily, they may serve as a basis for judging the merit of a formal complaint pertaining to violation of professional ethical standards.
It should be noted that although computing is not mentioned in the imperatives of Section 1, the Code is concerned with how these fundamental imperatives apply to one’s conduct as a computing professional. These imperatives are expressed in a general form to emphasize that ethical principles which apply to computer ethics are derived from more general ethical principles.
It is understood that some words and phrases in a code of ethics are subject to varying interpretations, and that any ethical principle may conflict with other ethical principles in specific situations. Questions related to ethical conflicts can best be answered by thoughtful consideration of fundamental principles, rather than reliance on detailed regulations.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.