**********Net Neutrality*****************
The concept of network neutrality
1. Net neutrality is a principle that says Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all traffic and content on their networks equally.
2. Individuals should be free to access all content and applications
equally, regardless of the source, without Internet service providers
discriminating against specific online services or websites.
In other words, it is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet.
Absence of neutrality would mean
1. ISP might favor certain websites/apps over others. Surfing on these favored websites/apps may cost users less money or may even be free. Users might have to pay extra for other websites/Apps.
2. Website A might load at a faster speed than Website B because your ISP has a deal with Website A that Website B cannot afford.
Small businesses use the Internet to reach new customers, advertise their goods & services, distribute products to customers. The Internet has reduced transaction costs for all these. These costs are same for all businesses (small/large/medium). Thus the web provides level playing field.
By reducing costs and providing level playing field net neutrality lowers the barriers of entry for entrepreneurs, startups and small businesses.
It is because of Net Neutrality that small businesses and entrepreneurs have been able to thrive on the Internet.
Without Net Neutrality, large businesses may enter into contract with ISPs to favor their websites or App. Small businesses would not be able to match this on account of lack of resources. This would mean millions of small businesses wouldn't be able to compete against larger corporations online.
Google competed against established search engines like AltaVista and Lycos, and became a giant based on the quality of its search results.
Google could overtake much stronger competitors because it wasn't more expensive to use or slower than AltaVista or Lycos.
Facebook overtook MySpace,Orkut (leading social networks before facebook).
Facebook could overtake much stronger competitors because it wasn't more expensive to use or slower than MySpace or Orkut.
Google, Facebook and other companies succeeded because the network neither hindered them nor helped their competition. If the ISPs had made AltaVista traffic faster than Google traffic, google would have struggled to make it big.
The open Internet gives marginalized voices opportunities to be heard. But without Net Neutrality, ISPs could block unpopular speech and prevent dissident voices from speaking freely online. Without Net Neutrality, people would lose a vital platform.
Without net neutrality rules in place, ISPs can prevent users from visiting some websites, provide slower speeds, or even redirect users from one website to a competing website. This would deprive people of valuable information, thus obstructing freedom of speech.
Net neutrality rules prevent this by requiring ISPs to connect users to all lawful content on the internet equally, without giving preferential treatment to certain sites or services.
• Facebook brought to India internet.org, It offers subscribers of Reliance Communications access to pre-selected Websites free of cost.
• TRAI sought views of people on about how the Internet can be regulated and on net neutrality. It received huge response from public in support of net neutrality.
• Political parties such as the Congress, political leaders such as Arvind Kejriwal and celebrities such as Shah Rukh Khan joined the bandwagon, as has the comedy group AIB through a video. All of them argue why the Internet should not be touched.
• Airtel launched Airtel Zero, which offers to customers certain apps without having to pay anything for data. The app owner will pay for the app usage by the customer.
• Flipkart pulled out of the platform after initially agreeing to be on it, saying it was committed to Net neutrality.
Central to today's debate is the effort by ISPs to undermine net neutrality in order to make more money than they can do by simply providing services.
In zero rating (like Airtel zero), consumers do not pay for the bandwidth when using certain kinds of apps or services but the provider of the service does. The data usage is not priced equally. This creates a situation where consumers favor certain apps not for their quality, but because of how data used by the app is priced.
This is an unfair advantage provided by the platform (internet) to select services, as consumers will naturally choose a service that is cheaper. Even if zero rating is offered to everyone, it is strictly an additional expense for startups and entrepreneurs, and established companies can bleed them to death.
Additionally, ISPs can create their own apps (For example: Wynk) and make them zero rated, giving them an advantage over competitors that might be more innovative or have better quality (like Gaana or Saavn).
In the same way, through internet.org Facebook can act as a gatekeeper, letting select sites in and shutting out competition.
Network neutrality has served as a platform where companies compete based on ideas, and no competitive advantage is provided to anyone based on either quality of service or pricing. It should remain that way.
Where do other countries stand?
• USA: The Federal Communications Commission recently voted for strong Net neutrality rules to ensure Internet service providers neither block, throttle traffic nor give access priority for money.
• Europe: Europe is revising rules in which privileged access was allowed to ‘specialized services.’
• Chile last year banned zero-rated schemes wherein access to select social media was given free to telecom subscribers.
In other words, it is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet.
Absence of Net Neutrality
The internet is now a level-playing field. Anybody can start up a website, stream music or use social media with the same amount of data that they have purchased with a particular ISP.
Absence of neutrality would mean
1. ISP might favor certain websites/apps over others. Surfing on these favored websites/apps may cost users less money or may even be free. Users might have to pay extra for other websites/Apps.
2. Website A might load at a faster speed than Website B because your ISP has a deal with Website A that Website B cannot afford.
Why Net Neutrality?
1. For small businesses
Net Neutrality is crucial for small business owners, startups and entrepreneurs.Small businesses use the Internet to reach new customers, advertise their goods & services, distribute products to customers. The Internet has reduced transaction costs for all these. These costs are same for all businesses (small/large/medium). Thus the web provides level playing field.
By reducing costs and providing level playing field net neutrality lowers the barriers of entry for entrepreneurs, startups and small businesses.
It is because of Net Neutrality that small businesses and entrepreneurs have been able to thrive on the Internet.
Without Net Neutrality, large businesses may enter into contract with ISPs to favor their websites or App. Small businesses would not be able to match this on account of lack of resources. This would mean millions of small businesses wouldn't be able to compete against larger corporations online.
Google competed against established search engines like AltaVista and Lycos, and became a giant based on the quality of its search results.
Google could overtake much stronger competitors because it wasn't more expensive to use or slower than AltaVista or Lycos.
Facebook overtook MySpace,Orkut (leading social networks before facebook).
Facebook could overtake much stronger competitors because it wasn't more expensive to use or slower than MySpace or Orkut.
Google, Facebook and other companies succeeded because the network neither hindered them nor helped their competition. If the ISPs had made AltaVista traffic faster than Google traffic, google would have struggled to make it big.
2. For marginalized
The net neutrality allows communities/groups to tell their own stories and to organize for social justice. The mainstream media may not take a note of everything.The open Internet gives marginalized voices opportunities to be heard. But without Net Neutrality, ISPs could block unpopular speech and prevent dissident voices from speaking freely online. Without Net Neutrality, people would lose a vital platform.
3. Freedom of Speech
Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block political opinions it disagreed with.Without net neutrality rules in place, ISPs can prevent users from visiting some websites, provide slower speeds, or even redirect users from one website to a competing website. This would deprive people of valuable information, thus obstructing freedom of speech.
Net neutrality rules prevent this by requiring ISPs to connect users to all lawful content on the internet equally, without giving preferential treatment to certain sites or services.
4. Innovation
In the absence of net neutrality, companies can buy priority access to ISP customers. Larger, wealthier companies like Google or Facebook can pay ISPs to provide faster, more reliable access to their websites than to potential competitors. This could deter innovative start-up services that are unable to purchase priority access from the ISPs. Also, if ISPs can charge online services to connect to consumers, consumers would ultimately bear these additional costs.Recent Events
• India’s telecom company Bharti Airtel, few months back decided to charge subscribers extra for use of apps such as Skype and Viber. These apps compete with the voice and messaging services of telecom providers, and are even cheaper. Airtel stayed its decision, saying it would wait for regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) services.
• Facebook brought to India internet.org, It offers subscribers of Reliance Communications access to pre-selected Websites free of cost.
• TRAI sought views of people on about how the Internet can be regulated and on net neutrality. It received huge response from public in support of net neutrality.
• Political parties such as the Congress, political leaders such as Arvind Kejriwal and celebrities such as Shah Rukh Khan joined the bandwagon, as has the comedy group AIB through a video. All of them argue why the Internet should not be touched.
• Airtel launched Airtel Zero, which offers to customers certain apps without having to pay anything for data. The app owner will pay for the app usage by the customer.
• Flipkart pulled out of the platform after initially agreeing to be on it, saying it was committed to Net neutrality.
Central to today's debate is the effort by ISPs to undermine net neutrality in order to make more money than they can do by simply providing services.
In zero rating (like Airtel zero), consumers do not pay for the bandwidth when using certain kinds of apps or services but the provider of the service does. The data usage is not priced equally. This creates a situation where consumers favor certain apps not for their quality, but because of how data used by the app is priced.
This is an unfair advantage provided by the platform (internet) to select services, as consumers will naturally choose a service that is cheaper. Even if zero rating is offered to everyone, it is strictly an additional expense for startups and entrepreneurs, and established companies can bleed them to death.
Additionally, ISPs can create their own apps (For example: Wynk) and make them zero rated, giving them an advantage over competitors that might be more innovative or have better quality (like Gaana or Saavn).
In the same way, through internet.org Facebook can act as a gatekeeper, letting select sites in and shutting out competition.
Network neutrality has served as a platform where companies compete based on ideas, and no competitive advantage is provided to anyone based on either quality of service or pricing. It should remain that way.
Where do other countries stand?
• USA: The Federal Communications Commission recently voted for strong Net neutrality rules to ensure Internet service providers neither block, throttle traffic nor give access priority for money.
• Europe: Europe is revising rules in which privileged access was allowed to ‘specialized services.’
• Chile last year banned zero-rated schemes wherein access to select social media was given free to telecom subscribers.
No comments:
Post a Comment