Essay Sample on Should the Government Levy Net Neutrality Rules on Internet Service Retailers?

The debate on whether the government should levy certain neutrality restrictions on Internet Service Retailers has become more controversial in contemporary society. Some proponents regard the step as an essential way of indirectly controlling how retailers control the use of Internet services. Others oppose the measure as inappropriate in guiding the retailers of internet services. For instance, the internet was sent into panic by the US Federal Communications Commission in July 2018 after it scrapped away the regulations governing net neutrality. In the year 2015, under the Obama administration, the law was put into place, but three years later, the FCC let them expire. The argument for its scrapping was that it hampered internet providers and stifled innovation. On the other hand, the counter-argument claims that it should not be scrapped since, without it, nothing will be able to stop ISP from providing grander bandwidths to those websites that can manage either hide premium or pay for extra information or content. As much as there exist arguments supporting and contrary to net neutrality, its basic concept is that all traffic should be accorded fair treatment minus prioritizing or penalizing traffic from a publisher, service provider, or domain name. The only way to ensure fair treatment on the usage of internet services is by levying the rules on internet service retailers.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Proponent's Arguments

Imposing the net neutrality rules will promote competition and innovation. The reason being, an open internet ensures that the more prominent firms do not take advantage or have one over the smaller companies. It will serve as a level frolicking arena on the internet whereby everything gets conveyed as fast as probable to the end-user. According to Yoo, instead of harming innovation as well as competition, the two could be better served if at all a 'network diversity' principle gets embraced by policymakers (Wu & Yoo, 2007). The policy would permit various network providers to go after varied approaches to aid in traffic routing. Apart from that, more competition among network platforms might also be gotten from employing different protocols. It will happen by allowing several networks to subsist via targeting the overall market's sub-segments.

The rules will promote unfettered access. Net neutrality is responsible for squashing the prospective for the internet fast lanes, whereby charge content creators can be charged by internet providers for sufficient bandwidth to provide their services appropriately. It also averts the likelihood whereby end users are charged by providers an extra fee to be able to gain access to vital services such as entertainment platforms, email, or online banking. Yoo argues that FCC could easily employ the vagueness of the 'commercially reasonable' standard in blocking broadband providers from providing tiered services that offer special treatment to those content providers that pay extra (Wu & Yoo, 2007). Thus, the neutrality rules could easily promote certain practices that may be safe for the retailers since they are considered ethical in the overall operation techniques.

He adds that this particular tactic could be used deliberately by FCC to avert another legal defeat. Since the rule may aim at blocking a certain number of broadband providers with unrestricted access, they can act as a legitimate tool for arguing about undocumented denial of operations in the industry. The resulting benefit will be to reduce the use of the internet for illegal activities that may promote immoral behaviors in society. Therefore, the proponents' arguments on the need for neutrality become more sensible.

The government should impose neutrality rules because it will promote the freedom of expressing oneself. As long as it is licit, any new service, website, or blog is obtainable online, under the net neutrality concept. Otherwise, access to the content they do not want to view could be blocked by internet service providers. The rules would provide a comprehensive framework that ensures all the access that should be denied to the internet is kept inaccessible. The sites that are not supposed to be viewed by internet users are determined by certain factors that categorize them as immoral or dirty content.

Some of these could be viral sites that conduct video streaming or someplace that is competing with their individual concerns' etcetera. Net neutrality rules will give diverse people across the globe a voice online, for better or for worse. In the increasingly dynamic world, every individual can, therefore, express their idea in the global space and share their opinions on various issues of the world. The neutrality rules, therefore, have great significance in controlling the access of multiple contents.

Opponent's Arguments

Imposing the rules will mean no free access to the internet. The supporters for fewer flubs of internet service retailers claim that permitting them to levy charges for some content's access will result in unrestricted access to particular sites. For instance, they claim that if bandwidth-hungry firms such as Netflix are charged by internet service providers more for utilizing their substructure, then they will provide entrance to sites such as Facebook or Wikipedia free of charge, even if they had no internet pact. According to Wu, revenue can be generated by charging internet providers to reach consumers as disparate from charging for bandwidth (Wu & Yoo, 2007). As a result, as the provider gains an incentive to maintain a scarcity level, the motives get mixed, thus maximizing gatekeeper revenue.

There is objectionable content that is currently thriving. Some of the net neutrality opponents' dirge on how easily obtainable licit but material that is age-sensitive such as pornography is. They argue that the contents are detrimental to the life of the upcoming generation, with various dimensions that begin from ruining their sexual life as well as other significant social aspects. Whereas there exist sufficient security merchants' supply who permit kinfolks to limit the sites obtainable on a household PC, more kids have connected devices and smartphones with which they can get online minus an adult's supervision.

Besides, the latest reports reveal the frequency of access to such content by children has drastically increased hence calling for specific rules to govern the sector. The neutrality rules have a way of protecting the direct access of children to the internet, which in turn controls the types of information and contents that they can view. Without the rules, they always access free and can be misused by the children to grow the cycle of unauthorized access that has increasingly become common.

The issue could be solved if at all, an internet service retailer could retrain these particular services at a net comprehensive level. The solution could only be possible if the responsibility is accorded to the retailers to have a direct say on the way such services are being controlled. It serves as one of the cases under the United Kingdom's Digital Economy Act, which will push people to authenticate their identity to gain access to pornography sites as well as ISP-level blocking of those sites that fail to comply (Wu & Yoo, 2007). Furthermore, peer-to-peer file distribution accountable for various unlawful downloads could be cracked down by providers.

The opponents also argue that it would be easier to trace all the mischievous actions that take place in the use of internet services without the neutrality rules; thus, it is not necessary to bring government intervention if the available controls can guide the use of the internet. The primary aim of the regulations is to create an album of mischievous activities on the internet. Therefore, introducing neutrality laws will become redundant and lose objectivity hence rendering it insignificant.

Imposing rules will result in a lesser network invention. The upsurge of bandwidth website services such as video streaming as well as content downloads means that internet service retailers do not have much cash to invest in advancing their networks. If they could be able to charge large companies such as Microsoft and Google for conveying their resource-intensive services, then they could capitalize on expanding and upgrading their networks. According to FCC research, under net neutrality, investment fell 2 and 3% respectively in 2015 and 2016, whereas the largest ISP escalated spending (Wu & Yoo, 2007). According to Wu, infrastructure economics problems are real and cannot be overlooked. The costs that come along with it are high probable costs to the application market.

The debate has drawn on the pros and cons of doing so, and Christopher Yoo and Tim Wu are some of the people who have been at the forefront of this debate. Some of the disadvantages of imposing the rules include the promotion of competition and innovation. It will do so by serving as a level playing field on the internet, whereby everything gets conveyed as fast as probable to the end user. Apart from that, it will also promote unfettered access and promoting freedom of expression. Through the promotion of unrestricted access, it will also avert the possibility whereby end users are charged by providers an extra fee to be able to gain access to vital services such as entertainment platforms, email, or online banking.

On the other hand, the critics argue that the rules should not be imposed because it will mean no free internet access and less network innovation, among others. Another claim is that nothing will be able to stop ISP from providing higher bandwidths to those websites that can manage to pay for extra or hide premium content. Therefore, before taking a side on whether the neutrality rules should be imposed or not on the internet providers, one should take into consideration the two sides of the argument.

Conclusion

On balance, the proponents' arguments on the Net Neutrality Rules on Internet Service remain outstanding since they have more substantial reasons behind their stance. The impact of neutrality rules will have a meaningful effect on controlling the use of the internet which has increasingly caused much harm to people. The leaking of viral contents could be easily contained if the rules would be applied which will, in turn, save the victims of certain types of cybercrimes. Besides, the advantage and protection that the neutrality rules impose on children and the upcoming generation shape the future society in various ways.

Reference

Wu, T., & Yoo, C. S. (2007). Keeping the internet neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo debate.