Accordingly one should consider net neutrality in terms of a dichotomy between types of discrimination that make economic sense and will not harm consumers and those that constitute unfair trade practices and other types of anticompetitive practices. [1] Non-discrimination mandates that one class of customers may not be favored over another so the network that is built is the same for everyone, and everyone can access it. [2]
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee. [3] Network neutrality is a set of rules that forbid network owners from discriminating against independent applications (instead of against competing ISPs, as with open access). [2]
A network provider may not discriminate against traffic, applications, or protocols. A network provider would be limited to offering trust-related services, such as spam filtering or virus protection, so long as the individual users may opt out of them. [13]
A network provider may discriminate against content, applications or protocols to protect the network, but it may not take into account any affiliation (or lack thereof) with a content, application, or protocol provider when deciding whether to discriminate. [13]
A network provider may discriminate against content, applications, or protocols, so long as it does so to protect the network. [13]
While the basic principal of data discrimination is censorship, those in favor of this practice claim that there are benefits. The ISPs are a business, and as such, “…correctly state that external, non-market driven constraints on their ability to price discriminate can adversely impact their incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure and their ability to recoup that investment.” (Frieden) [1] There are times when it could make sense, in the eyes of the ISPs, to give preference to one type of content over another. For example, loading a plain text and image website is not nearly as strenuous as loading sites such as Hulu and YouTube. Frieden states that, “Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) seek to diversify the Internet by prioritizing bitstreams and by offering different quality of service guarantees. To some observers this strategy constitutes harmful discrimination that violates a tradition of network neutrality in the switching, routing and transmission of Internet traffic.” [1] With the QoS argument is that network neutrality rules make allowances for network owners to practice some types of discrimination to protect the functioning of the network. [2]
Those that oppose data discrimination say that it hurts the growth of the Internet, as well as the economy that is rooted into the depths of the Internet model. “Instead of promoting competition, such picking of winners and losers will stifle the investment needed to perpetuate the Internet's phenomenal growth, hurting the economy.“ [16] If, for example, telecommunication network operators blocked data packets of Voice-over-IP services that might substitute their own telephone services, this would not only discriminate against specific firms, but also reduce competition and economic welfare. Technically, this would not be a problem. Although data packets are homogeneous with respect to switching and transmission treatment, type, source, and destination can be revealed and data packets be handled differently if a network operator prefers to do so. [18] Another problem is that the type of data that is given preferential treatment is up to the discretion of the ISP. This allows them to move data as they see fit, whether it be through a political, moral, any other such kind of "lens". This goes against the first amendment, the freedom of speech because by stopping certain kinds of information from reaching the end user, they are censoring content. It is not the place of the ISP to censor content from the people.
The real threat to an open Internet is at the local network (the ends), where network owners can block information coming in from the inter-network, but it also is at the local network where the most harm can occur. Because of this, network neutrality rules allow some discrimination by the local network to protect itself, though it may not be based on content or type of application. For example, network owners want to protect their networks from being damaged. So, some discrimination is allowed to "prevent physical harm to the local Broadband Network caused by any network attachment or network usage." This means that local network operators may not control which types of applications users choose to employ, what type of devices users use to access the network, or which type of legal content users choose to convey or consume. The only allowable restrictions are on applications that cause harm to the local network.” [2]
Proponents of network neutrality concede that network security is crucial enough to warrent making exception to a network neutrality rule. Allowing network providers to deviate from neutrality only to the extent necessary to protect network trustworthiness is rooted in judicial and regulatory decisions and administrative rules that helped establish the principle of nondriscrimination as the core of network neutrality. [13] Sen. Al Franken has spoken out on FCC rulings “calling net neutrality the 'free speech issue of our time,' Franken (D-MN) expressed his displeasure with the FCC’s recent net neutrality rules. ‘These rules are not strong enough,” he said, pointing out that paid prioritization was not banned and that wireless networks are allowed to discriminate at will. The rules mark the ‘first time the FCC has ever allowed discrimination on the Internet’ and they ‘will create essentially two Internets.’” [19]
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Accordingly one should consider net neutrality in terms of a dichotomy between types of discrimination that make economic sense and will not harm consumers and those that constitute unfair trade practices and other types of anticompetitive practices. [1] Non-discrimination mandates that one class of customers may not be favored over another so the network that is built is the same for everyone, and everyone can access it. [2]
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee. [3] Network neutrality is a set of rules that forbid network owners from discriminating against independent applications (instead of against competing ISPs, as with open access). [2]
A network provider may not discriminate against traffic, applications, or protocols. A network provider would be limited to offering trust-related services, such as spam filtering or virus protection, so long as the individual users may opt out of them. [13]
A network provider may discriminate against content, applications or protocols to protect the network, but it may not take into account any affiliation (or lack thereof) with a content, application, or protocol provider when deciding whether to discriminate. [13]
A network provider may discriminate against content, applications, or protocols, so long as it does so to protect the network. [13]
While the basic principal of data discrimination is censorship, those in favor of this practice claim that there are benefits. The ISPs are a business, and as such, “…correctly state that external, non-market driven constraints on their ability to price discriminate can adversely impact their incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure and their ability to recoup that investment.” (Frieden) [1] There are times when it could make sense, in the eyes of the ISPs, to give preference to one type of content over another. For example, loading a plain text and image website is not nearly as strenuous as loading sites such as Hulu and YouTube. Frieden states that, “Some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) seek to diversify the Internet by prioritizing bitstreams and by offering different quality of service guarantees. To some observers this strategy constitutes harmful discrimination that violates a tradition of network neutrality in the switching, routing and transmission of Internet traffic.” [1] With the QoS argument is that network neutrality rules make allowances for network owners to practice some types of discrimination to protect the functioning of the network. [2]
Those that oppose data discrimination say that it hurts the growth of the Internet, as well as the economy that is rooted into the depths of the Internet model. “Instead of promoting competition, such picking of winners and losers will stifle the investment needed to perpetuate the Internet's phenomenal growth, hurting the economy.“ [16] If, for example, telecommunication network operators blocked data packets of Voice-over-IP services that might substitute their own telephone services, this would not only discriminate against specific firms, but also reduce competition and economic welfare. Technically, this would not be a problem. Although data packets are homogeneous with respect to switching and transmission treatment, type, source, and destination can be revealed and data packets be handled differently if a network operator prefers to do so. [18] Another problem is that the type of data that is given preferential treatment is up to the discretion of the ISP. This allows them to move data as they see fit, whether it be through a political, moral, any other such kind of "lens". This goes against the first amendment, the freedom of speech because by stopping certain kinds of information from reaching the end user, they are censoring content. It is not the place of the ISP to censor content from the people.
The real threat to an open Internet is at the local network (the ends), where network owners can block information coming in from the inter-network, but it also is at the local network where the most harm can occur. Because of this, network neutrality rules allow some discrimination by the local network to protect itself, though it may not be based on content or type of application. For example, network owners want to protect their networks from being damaged. So, some discrimination is allowed to "prevent physical harm to the local Broadband Network caused by any network attachment or network usage." This means that local network operators may not control which types of applications users choose to employ, what type of devices users use to access the network, or which type of legal content users choose to convey or consume. The only allowable restrictions are on applications that cause harm to the local network.” [2]
Proponents of network neutrality concede that network security is crucial enough to warrent making exception to a network neutrality rule. Allowing network providers to deviate from neutrality only to the extent necessary to protect network trustworthiness is rooted in judicial and regulatory decisions and administrative rules that helped establish the principle of nondriscrimination as the core of network neutrality. [13] Sen. Al Franken has spoken out on FCC rulings “calling net neutrality the 'free speech issue of our time,' Franken (D-MN) expressed his displeasure with the FCC’s recent net neutrality rules. ‘These rules are not strong enough,” he said, pointing out that paid prioritization was not banned and that wireless networks are allowed to discriminate at will. The rules mark the ‘first time the FCC has ever allowed discrimination on the Internet’ and they ‘will create essentially two Internets.’” [19]
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)