Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers treat all data on the Internet equally, and do not discriminate or charge differently by users, content, websites, platforms, applications, attached equipment types, or communication methods. For example, under these principles, internet service providers can not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for certain websites and online content. This is sometimes enforced through a government mandate. These rules may be referred to as "general operator" rules. It does not block all capabilities that Internet service providers should affect their customer service. The opt-in/opt-out service is on the end user side, and filtering can be done locally, as in the filtering of sensitive materials for minors. Regulation of net neutrality exists only to protect against abuse.
The term was coined by Columbia University's media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the old common carrier concept, used to describe the role of telephone systems.
A much-cited example of violations of Internet neutrality principles is that Comcast's confidential Internet service provider slows ("throttling") uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications using fake packages. Comcast did not stop blocking this protocol, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop. In another small example, the Madison River Communications company was fined US $ 15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for limiting their customers' access to Vonage, which rivaled their own services. AT & amp; T also caught restricting access to FaceTime, so only users who pay for the new shared data package AT & A can access the app. In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of suffocating after users saw that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it did "network testing" and the net neutrality rules allowed "reasonable network management practices".
Research shows that a combination of policy instruments will help to realize valuable political and economic goals that are central to network neutrality debate. Combined with strong public opinion, this has led some governments to set up broadband Internet services as public utilities, similar to the way electricity, gas, and water supply are set up, along with limited providers and set options that the service provider can offer. In the United States, in April 2015, the FCC issued an Open Internet Order, which reclassified Internet access - previously classified as an information service - as a general operator telecommunication service; namely public utilities. But on December 14, 2017, the Commission, headed by Chairman Ajit Pai, voted to lift part of the Open Internet Order 2015, classifying Internet access once again as an information service.
Video Net neutrality
Internet neutrality
Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. Internet traffic includes all the different messages, files and data sent over the Internet, including, for example, emails, digital audio files, digital video files, etc. According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is that public information networks will be most useful if all content, websites, and platforms (eg, mobile devices, video game consoles, etc.) are treated equally.
The proposed definition in more detail than the neutrality of the technical and service networks indicates that the neutrality of the service network is loyalty to the paradigm that service operations on a particular layer are not affected by data other than the data interpreted on that layer, and in accordance with the protocol specifications for that layer.
Go to Internet
Under the "open Internet" scheme, the full resources of the Internet and the means to operate within it should be easily accessible to all individuals, companies and organizations.
The prevailing concepts include: net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is viewed by some observers as being closely linked to open-source software, a kind of software program whose authors allow users to access code that runs the program so that users can improve software or improve bugs.
Net neutrality advocates see this as an important component of "open Internet", where policies such as equal data treatment and open web standards enable those who use the Internet to communicate easily, and conduct business and activities without the interference of third parties.
Instead, "Closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, where established people, companies, or governments like certain uses, restrict access to required web standards, artificially downgrade some services, or explicitly filter content. Some countries block certain websites or types of sites, and monitor and/or censor Internet use using Internet police, special types of law enforcement, or secret police.
Stupid Pip
The concept of "dumb network", consisting of "stupid pipes", has been around since at least the early 1990s. The term "stupid network" refers to an organized network but has little or no control or management of how users utilize the network. The term "dumb pipe" is analogous to the water pipe used in the municipal water supply system; in theory, these pipes provide a fixed water supply for all users, regardless of user identity or user activity with water.
In the "dumb network", the endpoint is considered to be in place where intelligence is located, and thus, advocates argue that the network must leave management and communication operations and transfer data to end users instead of government bureaus or Internet companies. In 2013, software company MetroTech Net, Inc. (MTN) coined the term "stupid wave", which is the application of the era of "pipe era" on wireless networks everywhere.
Experts in high technology will often compare this dumb pipeline concept with intelligent networks - also known as smart pipes - and which debates are best applied to certain parts of the internet policy. This conversation usually refers to these two concepts as analogous to the concept of open and closed Internet respectively. Thus, certain models have been created that aim to decipher the four layers of the Internet with the understanding of the dummy pipe theory:
- Content Layer: Contains services like entertainment and music communications as well as videos.
- Application Layer: Contains services such as e-mail and web browsers.
- Logical Layer (Also called Code Layer): Contains various Internet protocols such as TCP/IP and HTTP.
- Physical Layers: Consist of services that provide everything else such as wired or wireless connection.
End-to-end principle
The end-to-end principle of network design was first poured into the 1981 paper The end-to-end argument in system design by Jerome H. Saltzer, David P. Reed, and David D. Clark. This principle states that, whenever possible, the operation of the communication protocol must be defined to occur at the end point of the communication system, or as close as possible to the controlled resource. According to the end-to-end principle, protocol features are only justified in the lower layers of the system if they are performance optimization; therefore, TCP retransmission for reliability can still be justified, but efforts to improve TCP reliability must cease after peak performance is achieved.
They argue that a reliable system tends to require end-to-end processing to operate properly, in addition to any processing in the intermediate system. They point out that most of the features at the lowest level of communication systems have a fee for all higher-layer clients, even if the client does not require the feature, and redundant if the client has to reimplement the feature at the end of the to-end base. This leads to a minimal model of dumb tissue with a smart terminal, a completely different model from the previous paradigm of intelligent networks with dumb terminals. Because the end-to-end principle is one of the key design principles of the Internet, and because practical tools to implement data discrimination violate end-to-end principles, the principle often enters a discussion of net neutrality. The end-to-end principle is closely related, and is sometimes seen as a direct precursor to the principle of net neutrality.
Forms of traffic
Traffic shaping is the control of computer network traffic to optimize or guarantee performance, increase latency (ie, reduce internet response time), and/or increase usable bandwidth by delaying "packets" that meet certain criteria. In practice, traffic generation is often done by "throttling" certain types of data, such as streaming video or sharing P2P files. More specifically, traffic generation is any action on a set of packets (often called streams or streams) that impose additional delays on the packets so they conform to some predetermined limits (contract or traffic profile). Traffic shaping provides the means to control the volume of traffic sent to a network within a given period (bandwidth throttling), or the maximum rate at which traffic is sent (speed limits), or more complex criteria such as generic cell rate algorithms.
Over-provisioning
If the core of a network has more bandwidth than is permitted to enter the edges, then good service quality (QoS) can be obtained without police or throttling. For example, landline telephone networks use incoming controls to restrict user requests to the network core by refusing to create circuits for requested connections. During a natural disaster, for example, most users will get a busy signal if they pick up landline phones, because the phone company prioritizes 9-1-1 and other emergency calls. Over-provisioning is a form of statistical doubling that makes a liberal estimate of peak user demand. Over-provisioning is used in private networks such as WebEx and Internet 2 Abilene Network, a network of American universities. David Isenberg believes that continued over-provisioning will always provide more capacity for less cost of QoS and in-depth inspection package technology.
Device neutrality
The device's neutrality is the principle that, to ensure freedom of choice and freedom of communicating to users, it is not enough that network operators do not interfere with their choice and activity but that they should be free to use the app of their choice and thereby remove any applications they do not want.
This can be defined by the following analogy for network neutrality:
Network neutrality: The discrimination of traffic management or pricing with anticompetitive purposes may be pursued by antitrust authorities in a jurisdiction but the case may take years and is very expensive, something that benefits large companies over small companies and new companies. Under the concept of "Net Neutrality", some codified ex-ante principles and judicial routes, much simpler and more direct, are defined when compared to antitrust cases. In general terms of law, does this mean that traffic management policies can not be applied? No, it just means that management should eventually be the same for everyone, including from the telecom operators themselves, as compared to other competing companies. If such discrimination occurs, it is possible to legally intervene with a simpler and faster legal instrument than antitrust cases.
Device neutrality: Application discrimination or price fixing for anti-competitive purposes may be pursued by the Antitrust authorities but the case may take years and is very expensive, something that benefits large companies over small and beginner companies. Under the concept of "Device Neutrality", some codified ex-ante principles and judicial routes, much simpler and more direct, are determined when compared to antitrust cases. In general terms of law, does this mean that app install policies are not applicable? No, it just means that management should eventually be the same for everyone, including from the operator of the platform itself, compared to other competing companies. If such discrimination occurs, it is possible to legally intervene with a simpler and faster legal instrument than antitrust cases.
Bills for enforcing network and device neutrality have been introduced in Italy by 2015 by Hon. Stefano Quintarelli and was terminated at the last Senate vote in 2017, after many successful votes in the House of Representatives and through all Senate committees, thanks to lobbying efforts by several multinational device manufacturers and telecom operators. The law has received formal support in the European Commission by the BEUC, the European Consumer Organization, the Frontier Electronic Foundation and the Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights. Similar laws have been ratified in South Korea, the same principle has been proposed in China and the French telecommunications regulator ARCEP has called for introduction of Device Neutrality in Europe.
Maps Net neutrality
Based on the problem
Discrimination based on protocol
Discrimination by protocols is support or blocking information based on aspects of communication protocols used by computers to communicate. In the US, a complaint was filed with the Federal Communications Commission against a Comcast cable provider stating that they have illegally impeded users of high-speed Internet services from using popular BitTorrent file-sharing software. Comcast acknowledged no errors in the proposed settlement of up to US $ 16 per share in December 2009. However, the US appeals court ruled in April 2010 that the FCC exceeded its authority when it approved Comcast in 2008 for deliberately preventing some customers from using peer services share file-to-peer to download large files. However, FCC spokesman Jen Howard responded, "the court is totally disagreeing with the importance of keeping the Internet free and open, nor does it close the door to other methods to achieve this important [destination] end." Regardless of the decision in favor of Comcast, a study by the Measurement Lab in October 2011 verified that Comcast had stopped the practice of BitTorrent blocking.
Discrimination by IP address
During the 1990s, creating a non-neutral Internet was technically unfeasible. Originally developed to filter out malicious malware, Internet security company NetScreen Technologies released a network firewall in 2003 with so-called deep packet inspection capabilities. In-depth package inspection helps create real-time discrimination between the various types of data possible, and is often used for Internet censorship. In a practice called zero-rank, the company will replace the use of data from a particular address, supporting the use of the service. Examples include Facebook Zero and Google Free Zone. Zero-rating practice is very common in developing countries.
Sometimes an Internet Service Provider (ISP) will charge several companies, but not others, for the traffic it causes on ISP networks. French telecommunications operator Orange complains that traffic from YouTube and other Google sites comprises about 50% of total traffic on the Orange network, making a deal with Google, where they charge Google for the traffic on the Orange network. Some also think that Orange competitors, ISP, Free, strangle YouTube traffic. However, an investigation by the French telecommunications watchdog revealed that the network was only crowded during peak hours.
In addition to the zero-ranking method, ISPs will also use certain strategies to reduce the cost of a pricing plan such as the use of sponsored data. In a scenario where a sponsored data plan is used, a third party will log in and pay for all the unwanted content (or operator or consumer). This is generally used as a way for ISPs to remove out-of-pocket costs from customers.
Supports private network
Net neutrality advocates argue that without new regulations, Internet service providers will be able to support their own personal protocol over others. ISPs may encourage the use of certain services by using private networks to distinguish what data is calculated by bandwidth limits. For example, Comcast made a deal with Microsoft that allows users to stream television through their Xfinity app on their Xbox 360 without affecting their bandwidth limits. However, making use of other streaming television apps, such as Netflix, HBO Go, and Hulu, is calculated to the limit. Comcast denies that this violates the principle of internet neutrality because "Xfinity services run for Xbox on its own private Internet protocol network".
Take a peek at discrimination
There is some disagreement about whether "snooping" is a matter of net neutrality. In the first quarter of 2014, the Netflix streaming website achieved arrangements with ISP Comcast to improve the quality of its services to Netflix clients. This arrangement was made in response to slower connection speeds through Comcast during 2013, where average speeds dropped by more than 25% from their value a year earlier to an all-time low. After the deal was reached in January 2014, Netflix's speed index recorded a 66% increase in connections. Netflix approved a similar agreement with Verizon in 2014, after Verizon DSL's subscriber connection speed dropped to less than 1 Mbit/d earlier in the year. Netflix spoke out against this deal with a controversial statement delivered to all Verizon customers experiencing low connection speeds, using Netflix clients. This sparked an internal debate between the two companies that caused Verizon to get a stop order and stop on June 5, 2014 forcing Netflix to stop displaying this message.
Likes fast loading websites
The pro-net neutrality argument has also noted that regulation is also necessary because studies that have shown low tolerance to content providers are slow to load. In a 2009 study conducted by Forrester Research, online shoppers expect web pages they visit to download content instantly. When a page fails to load at the expected speed, many of them just clicked out. A study found that even a one second delay could cause "11% fewer page views, 16% reduction in customer satisfaction, and 7% loss in conversion". This delay may cause server problems for small innovators who have created new technologies. If the website is slow by default, the general public will lose interest and love websites that run faster. It helps big companies retain power because they have the means to fund faster internet speeds. On the other hand, smaller competitors have less financial ability making it difficult for them to succeed in the online world.
Legal aspects
Law enforcement principles of net neutrality take various forms, from provisions that prohibit the blocking of anti-competition and "blocking" Internet services, all the way to law enforcement that prevents companies from subsidizing the use of the Internet on certain sites. Contrary to popular rhetoric and remarks by various individuals engaged in ongoing academic debates, research shows that single policy instruments (such as a policy without blockade or quality of service tiering policy) can not reach a range of valuable political and economic goals to the debate. As suggested by Bauer and Obar, "maintaining a range of objectives requires a combination of instruments that will likely involve government and nongovernmental measures and promote promoting objectives such as freedom of speech, political participation, investment, and innovation calls for complementary policies."
By country
Governments of countries that comment on clean neutrals usually support the concept.
Arguments support
Net neutrality supporters include consumer advocates, human rights organizations such as Article 19, online companies and some technology companies. Many major Internet application companies are supporters of neutrality. Yahoo !, Vonage, eBay, Amazon, IAC/InterActiveCorp, Microsoft, Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, Etsy, Daily Kos, Greenpeace, along with many other companies and organizations, have also taken the stance to support clean neutrality. Cogent Communications, an international Internet service provider, has made an announcement that supports a certain clean neutrality policy.
In 2008, Google published a statement speaking against broadband service providers abusing their market power to influence access to competing applications or content. They further equate the situation with the phone market, where telephone companies are not allowed to control who their customers call or what customers say. However, Google's support for net neutrality is questionable in 2014. Several civil rights groups, such as the ACLU, Frontier Electronics Foundation, Free Press, and Fight for the Future support net neutrality.
Individuals who support clean neutrality include the inventors of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, Vinton Cerf, Lawrence Lessig, Robert W. McChesney, Steve Wozniak, Susan P. Crawford, Marvin Ammori, Ben Scott, David Reed and former US President Barack Obama. On November 10, 2014, Obama recommends the FCC reclassify broadband Internet services as telecommunication services to keep net neutrality. On November 12, 2014, AT & amp; T stop the build-out of their fiber network until it has a "solid net neutrality rule to follow". On 31 January 2015, AP News reported that the FCC will present the notion of applying ("with a few warning") Title II (general operator) of the Communications Act of 1934 and section 706 of Telecommunications action 1996 to the Internet in an expected vote on February 26 2015.
Data control
Internet neutrality supporters in the United States want to designate cable companies as general carriers, which will require them to allow Internet access providers (ISPs) free access to cable channels, the same model used for dial-up Internet. They want to make sure that the cable company can not filter, interrupt or filter Internet content without a court order. The status of a common carrier will give the FCC the power to enforce a net neutrality rule. SaveTheInternet.com accused cable companies of telecommunications and wanted the role of gatekeepers, able to control which websites loaded quickly, loaded slowly, or did not load at all. According to SaveTheInternet.com, these companies want to levy the cost of content providers that require fast data delivery - to create benefits for their own search engine, Internet phone service, and streaming video services - and slow access or block access to competitors. Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and Google vice president at the moment, argues that the Internet is designed without authority that controls access to new content or new services. He concluded that the principles responsible for making the Internet such a success would be fundamentally undermined is that broadband operators are afforded the ability to influence what people see and do online. Cerf also writes about the importance of viewing issues such as Net Neutrality through a combination of layered systems of the Internet and the multistakeholder model that governs them. He shows how challenges can arise that could have implications on Net Neutrality in certain infrastructure-based cases, such as when ISPs enter into exclusive arrangements with large building owners, making residents unable to use any choice in broadband providers.
Digital rights and freedom
Neutrality advocates argue that neutral networks will encourage free speech and lead to further democratic participation on the Internet. Former Senator Al Franken of Minnesota worries that without new regulations, the major Internet Service Providers will use their position of power to paralyze the rights of people. He called net neutrality "the First Amendment Problem of our time". By ensuring that everyone and websites have equal access to each other, regardless of their ability to pay, net neutral supporters want to prevent the need to pay for speeches and further centralize media strength. Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, which encourages democratic communication. Lessig and McChesney went on to state that the Internet monopoly will hamper the diversity of independent news sources and the generation of innovative and new web content.
User intolerance for slow loading sites
The net neutralists advocate for a process of human psychological adaptation in which when people get used to something better, they will never want to go back to something worse. In the context of the Internet, proponents argue that users who are accustomed to the "fast lane" on the Internet will find a "slow lane" that can not be tolerated in comparison, severely disadvantageous providers who can not afford the "fast track." "Netflix and Vimeo video providers in their comments to the FCC support clean neutrality using the research of SS Krishnan and Ramesh Sitaraman that provide the first quantitative evidence of the speed of adaptation among online video users.They studied the patience level of millions of internet video users who waited for slow loading videos to start playing. faster Internet connectivity, like fiber-to-the-home, shows less patience and leaves their videos faster than similar users with slower Internet connectivity.The results show how users can get used to faster Internet connectivity bumps into higher expectations of Internet speed, and lower tolerance for any delays that occur. Author Nicholas Carr and other social commentators have written about the phenomenon of habituation by stating that a faster flow of information on the Internet can make people less patient.
Competition and innovation
Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery will create an exploitative business model based on the ISP's position as a goalkeeper. Advocates warn that by charging access to websites, network owners may be able to block competitor websites and services, and deny access to those who can not pay. According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to use bandwidth for their own television services, and charge companies for priority services. Internet neutrality advocates argue that enabling preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or tiered services, will put new online companies at a slow disadvantage and innovation in online services. Wu's team argues that, without network neutrality, the Internet will undergo a transformation from a market ruled by innovation to one that is controlled by a deal. SaveTheInternet.com argues that net neutrality puts everyone on the same terms, which helps drive innovation. They claim it is the preservation of the way the Internet always operates, where quality websites and services determine whether they succeed or fail, rather than dealing with ISPs. Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that removing net neutrality will lead to an Internet that resembles the world of cable TV, so access to and distribution of content will be managed by a handful of large companies, near the monopoly, although there are several service providers in each region. These companies will then control what is seen and how much it costs to see it. Fast and secure Internet usage for industries such as healthcare, finance, retail, and gambling may incur a large fee imposed by these companies. They further explained that the majority of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started with little capital in their garage, inspired by great ideas. This is possible because net neutrality protection ensures limited control by network owners, maximum competition in this space, and allows innovators from outside access to the network. Internet content is guaranteed a free space and is very competitive with net neutrality. For example, in 2005, YouTube was just a small startup company. Due to the lack of an Internet fast track, YouTube has the ability to grow larger than Google Video. Tom Wheeler and Senator Ronald Lee Wyden (D-Ore.) And Al Franken (D-Minn.) Said, "Internet service providers treat YouTube videos just like Google does, and Google can not pay ISPs [Internet service providers] to get unfair advantages, such as fast tracks to consumer homes, "they wrote. "Well, people are more like YouTube than Google Video, so YouTube is growing."
Preserving Internet standards
Net neutrality advocates have sponsored a law claiming that authorizing existing network providers to override transport and application layer separation on the Internet would signal a decline in basic Internet standards and international consensus authorities. Furthermore, the law confirms that bit-shaping of transporting application data will undermine the flexibility of the designed transport layer.
Prevent pseudo-services
Alok Bhardwaj, founder of Epic Privacy Browser, believes that any breach of network neutrality, realistically speaking, will not involve genuine investment but rewards for unnecessary and dubious services. He believes that it is unlikely that new investments will be made to put special networks for specific websites to reach end users faster. Instead, it believes that non-net neutrality will involve improving the quality of services to extract remuneration from websites that want to avoid being slowed down. This theory was confirmed in 2014 when Netflix announced it had made payments to Comcast and Verizon to avoid slowing, slower Internet speeds for certain services or websites, by the ISP. These payments are described by Netflix founder Reed Hastings as "arbitrary taxes" and "fluctuating toll interconnections".
End-to-end principle
Some advocates say network neutrality is needed to maintain an end-to-end principle. According to Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney, all content should be treated equally and should move at the same pace to make net neutrality a reality. They say that this is a simple but brilliant end-to-end aspect that has enabled the Internet to act as a powerful force for economic and social good. Under this principle, neutral network is a dummy network, just skipping packets regardless of the applications it supports. This viewpoint is expressed by David S. Isenberg in his paper, "The Rise of the Stupid Network". He stated that the vision of intelligent networks is replaced by a new networking philosophy and architecture in which networks are designed to always be used instead of intermittent and scarce. Instead of the intelligence that is designed into the network itself, intelligence will be pushed out to end-user devices; and the network will be designed only to transmit bits without fancy network routing or smart number translation. The data will be under control, telling the network where it should be sent. End user devices will then be allowed to behave in a flexible manner, since bits are essentially free and there will be no assumption that data is a single data level or data type.
Contrary to this idea, a research paper entitled The end-to-end argument in system design by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark argues that network intelligence does not free the end system from the requirement to check data entry for errors and to assess -border sender, or for the massive removal of intelligence from the network core.
Arguments against
Opponents of net neutrality rules include Internet service providers (ISPs), broadband and telecommunications companies, prominent computer hardware manufacturers, economists and technologists. Many large hardware and telecommunications companies specifically oppose broadband reclassification as common carriers under Title II. The company's opponents of this size include Comcast, AT & amp; T, Verizon, IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, Wintel, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Panasonic, Ericsson, Oracle, Akamai and others. The US Telecom and Broadband Association, which represents a wide variety of small and large broadband providers, is also an opponent.
Nobel Prize-winning economic Memorial Gary Becker's paper, "Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare", published by Journal of Competition Law & amp; Economics, arguing that claims by net neutrality supporters "do not give a strong reason for regulation" because there is "significant and growing competition" among broadband providers. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt stated that, while Google considers that similar types of data should not be discriminated against, it is okay to discriminate in any type of data - positions that are both approved by Google and Verizon, according to Schmidt. According to the Journal, when President Barack Obama announced his support for a strong net neutrality rule by the end of 2014, Schmidt told White House officials over the president's mistakes. Google has strongly advocated for rules of neutrality as before 2010, but their support for rules has been reduced; But the company still remains "committed" to net neutrality.
Individuals who oppose the rules of net neutrality include TCP/IP inventor Bob Kahn, Netscape founder Marc Andreessen, founder of Sun Microsystems, Scott McNealy, PayPal founder Peter Thiel and Max Levchin, "Grandfather of the Internet" David Farber, Internet pioneer David Clark, packet switching pioneer Louis Pouzin, founder of MIT Media Lab, Nicholas Negroponte, CEO of Nokia Rajeev Suri, VOIP pioneer Jeff Pulver, entrepreneur Mark Cuban and FCC Chair Ajit Pai.
Nobel laureate Nobel who opposes the rules of net neutrality include Princeton economist Angus Deaton, Chicago economist Richard Thaler, MIT economist Bengt Holmstrom, and Chicago economist Gary Becker. Others include MIT economists David Autor, Amy Finkelstein, and Richard Schmalensee; Stanford Raj Chetty, Darrell Duffie, Caroline Hoxby, and Kenneth Judd; Harvard economist Alberto Alesina; Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach and Emmanuel Saez; and Yale economist William Nordhaus, Joseph Altonji and Pinelopi Goldberg.
Several civil rights groups, such as the National Urban League, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH, and League of United Latin American Citizens, have also opposed the Netralization rule of Title II, which says that calls to regulate broadband Internet services as utilities will harm minorities. communities by inhibiting investment in underserved areas.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, told the Washington Post that it has a "complicated relationship" with clean neutrality. Organizations partner with telecommunication companies to provide free access to Wikipedia for people in developing countries, under a program called Wikipedia Zero, without requiring cellular data to access information. This concept is known as a zero rating. According to Wikimedia Foundation official Gayle Karen Young, "Partnering with telecommunication companies in the near future, it blurs clean lines of neutrality in the regions, which fulfills our overall mission, though, which provides free knowledge."
A number of other opponents created Hands Off Internet , a website created in 2006 to promote arguments against Internet regulations. The main financial support for the website comes from AT & amp; T, and members including BellSouth, Alcatel, Cingular, and Citizens Against Government Waste.
Robert Pepper, a senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and former head of FCC's policy development, said: "Net neutrality supporters believe that more rules are needed.In their view, without greater regulation, providers may share bandwidth or service, create a bifurcated world where rich people enjoy first-class Internet access, while others are left with slow connections and degraded content.However, that scenario is a false paradigm. -no world that does not exist when it will also not exist in the future Without additional regulations, service providers tend to continue to do what they do, they will continue to offer broadband service packages at various price points to meet every type of consumer. " Computer scientist Bob Kahn said net neutrality is a slogan that will freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.
Farber has written and spoken strongly in support of advanced research and development on core Internet protocols. He joined academic colleagues Michael Katz, Christopher Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber in an op-ed to the Washington Post very critically on network neutrality, essentially stating that while the Internet needs renovation, congressional action aimed at protecting the best part of the internet today can disrupt efforts to build a replacement.
Reduced investment
According to a letter to the FCC commissioners and key congress leaders sent by 60 major ISP technology suppliers including IBM, Intel, Qualcomm and Cisco, the Internet's Title II rule "means that instead of billions of broadband investments pushing other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will hamper overall economic growth.This is not unclear speculation or fear of mongering... Title II will lead to a slowdown, if not contained, in building broadband, because if you do not know that you can recover your investment, you will not succeed. "According to Wall Street Journal, in one of Google's lobbying sessions with FCC officials, the company urged agencies to create regulations that encourage investment in broadband Internet networks - positions that reflect the argument that created by strong neutrality neutral rules, such as AT & amp; T and Comcast. Opponents of net neutrality argue that determining the priority of bandwidth is necessary for future innovation on the Internet. Telecommunications providers such as telephone and cable companies, and some technology companies that supply network equipment, think telecommunication providers must have the ability to provide preferential treatment in the form of tiered services, for example by providing online companies willing to pay the ability to transfer data packets faster than traffic Other Internet. The additional revenue from the service can be used to pay for the development of broadband access increase to more consumers.
Opponents say that net neutrality will make it more difficult for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other network operators to cover their investments in broadband networks. John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel Verizon, a broadband and telecommunications company, argue that they will not have the incentive to make substantial investments to develop advanced fiber optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies seeking to capitalize on the expanded network. Thorne and other ISPs accuse Google and Skype of freelading or a free ride because it uses the network of channels and cables that phone companies spend billions of dollars to build. Marc Andreessen states that "a pure net neutrality view is hard to sustain if you also want to continue investing in a broadband network.If you are a large telecom company today, you spend it on the order of $ 20 billion per year in capex [capital expenditure] You need to know how You will get a return on that investment If you have a pure net neutrality rule where you can never charge a company like Netflix, you will never get a return on network investment - which means you will stop investing in the network. sitting here 10 or 20 years from now with the same broadband speed we get today. "
Net neutrality supporters say network operators continue to invest less in infrastructure. However, according to Copenhagen Economics, US investment in telecommunications infrastructure is 50 percent higher than in the EU. As a share of GDP, the level of US broadband investment per GDP is only slightly and slightly South Korea, but exceeds Japan, Canada, Italy, Germany, and France. At broadband speeds, Akamai reports that the US is only trailing South Korea and Japan among its major trading partners, and only tracks Japan in the G-7 both in average peak connection speeds and the percentage of population connections at 10 Mbit/s or higher, but substantially ahead of most of the other major trading partners.
The White House reported in June 2013 that the speed of US connections is "the fastest compared to other countries with the same population or land". Akamai's report on "The State of the Internet" in the 2nd quarter of 2014 said "a total of 39 countries see 4K readiness levels more than doubled over the past year". In other words, as ZDNet reports, those countries are seeing a "big" increase in availability of the 15Mbit/s speed required for 4K video. According to the Progressive Policy Institute and ITU data, the United States has the most affordable entry-level price for fixed broadband in the OECD.
In Indonesia, there are a very high number of Internet connections that are subject to exclusive offerings between ISPs and building owners, and changing these dynamics can open more consumer choices and higher speeds. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai and the Federal Electoral Commission Lee Goldman wrote in a Politico article in February 2015, "Compare Europe, which has long had a utility-style regulation, with the United States, which has adopted a light touch setting model.The US broadband speed, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than in Europe.Internet broadband investment is a multiple of Europe, and broadband coverage is much wider in the United States, although the population density is much lower. "
VOIP pioneer Jeff Pulver stated that the FCC's uncertainty imposes Title II, which experts say will create restrictions on the use of the Internet to transmit voice calls, "the biggest barrier to innovation" for a decade. According to Pulver, investors in the companies he helped to find, such as Vonage, held back investments because they feared the FCC could use Title II to prevent VOIP startup from bypassing the telephone network.
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 some significant competitive issues have been observed to date, suggesting that there is no compelling reason strong for regulation ". Becker and associate economists Dennis Carlton and Hal Sidler found that "Between mid-2002 and mid-2008, the number of high-speed broadband access points 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 tripled between 2007 and 2009. At the same time, prices for broadband Internet access services fell sharply. "PPI reports that US broadband provider profit margins are generally one-sixth to eighth of broadband companies (such as Apple or Google) , contrary to the price-gazing monopoly idea by the provider.
When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler redefined broadband from 4 Mbit/sec to 25 Mbit/s (3.125 MB/sec) or greater in January 2015, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O'Reilly believe the redefinition is to set agency intent to solve battle net neutrality with new regulations. The commissioners argue that the more stringent speed guides describe the less competitive broadband industry, justifying the FCC's action with the rule of neutrality Title II.
A report by the Progressive Policy Institute in June 2014 states that almost every American can choose from at least 5-6 broadband Internet service providers, although it claims that there are only "a small number" of broadband providers. Citing research from the FCC, the Institute writes that 90 percent of American households have access to at least one broadband cable provider and one wireless with a minimum speed of 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 cable providers from broadband abandonment speeds (usually choosing between cable and telco offerings). Furthermore, 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 growing. Similarly, the FCC reported in June 2008 that 99.8% of ZIP codes in the United States had two or more available high-speed Internet providers, and 94.6% of ZIP codes had four or more providers, as reported by experts Chicago University economics Gary Becker, Dennis Carlton, and Hal Sider in a 2010 paper.
Disruptive Competition
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai stated that the FCC completely wiped out the concerns of smaller competitors that will be subject to various taxes, such as state property tax and general revenue tax. As a result, according to Pai, nothing can create more competition in the market. According to Pai, the FCC's decision to enforce Title II rules is opposed by the country's smallest private competitor and many city broadband providers. In its disagreements, Pai notes that 142 wireless ISPs (WISPs) say that "the intrusion of the new FCC regulations into our business... is likely to force us to raise prices, delay extensions, or both." He also noted that the 24 smallest ISPs in the country, each with less than 1,000 residential broadband subscribers, wrote to the FCC that Title II "would greatly weigh on our limited resources" because they "have no lawyers at home and no there is a budget line item for outside advice ". Furthermore, 43 other city broadband providers told the FCC that Title II "would trigger the consequences beyond the Commission's control and risk serious harm to our ability to fund and deploy broadband without bringing any concrete benefits to consumers or trusted providers that the market has not been proven. today without the help of additional regulations ".
According to a Wired magazine article by TechFreedom Berin Szoka, Matthew Starr, and Jon Henke, local government and public companies charge the most significant obstacle to entering for more cable broadband competitions: "While popular arguments focus on alleged ' monopolists' like big cable companies, it's the government to blame. "The authors state that local governments and their public utilities are burdening ISPs far more than they actually cost and have final decisions about whether ISPs can build networks. Public officials specify what ISPs must meet to get approval for access to public "right ways" (which allows them to place their cables), reducing the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy Internet services - such as AT & amp; T's Verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. Kickback can include city requirements for ISPs such as building services where not requested, donating equipment, and sending free broadband to government buildings.
According to a research article from MIS Quarterly, the authors state their findings subvert some expectations about how ISPs and CPs act on Net Neutrality laws. This paper shows that even if the ISP is below the limit, it still has the opportunity and incentive to act as a goalkeeper over CP by imposing content priority delivery.
Balancer to non-server neutrality side
Those who support the form of tiered non-neutral Internet access argue that the internet is not a balanced playing field, that large companies achieve performance advantages over smaller competitors by providing more and more qualified servers and purchasing high-bandwidth services. Should the removal of net neutrality rules precipitate price reductions for lower access levels, or access to only certain protocols, for example, as it would make the use of the Internet more adaptable to the needs of individuals and companies that specifically seek different levels of service. Network expert Richard Bennett has written, "A well-funded website, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porch of Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way on the same basis.This system, called Google broadband neutrality, actually maintaining a more fundamental inequality. "
Tax increase potential
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who opposed the II Titles II reclassification of the ISP, said the ruling allows for new fees and tax on broadband by subjecting them to phone style taxes under the Universal Service Fund. Net neutrality proponent Free Press writes, "the increase in tax potential and average cost per household will be much lower" than the estimates provided by net neutral opponents, and that if there is an additional tax, the tax rate may be around US $ 4 billion. In favorable circumstances, "the increase will be exactly zero". Meanwhile, the Progressive Policy Institute claims that Title II can trigger taxes and fees up to $ 11 billion per year. The Nerd Wallet financial website is doing their own assessment and establishes a possible tax impact of US $ 6.25 billion, estimating that the average American household can see their tax bill increased by US $ 67 per year.
FCC spokesman Kim Hart said that the ruling "does not raise taxes or fees. However, the opposing commissioner, Ajit Pai, claims that "the plan explicitly opens the door for billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband... This new tax will mean higher prices for consumers and the hidden costs they have to pay." Pai explained, "One way for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will apply to broadband.If you see your phone bill you'll see 'Universal Service Fee', or something like that.This fee - what most Americans call taxes - paid by Americans on their phone service, they channel about $ 9 billion annually through the FCC.Customers do not have to pay this tax on their broadband bills because broadband has never been a Title Service II.But now. And the Order explicitly opens the door for billions of dollars in new taxes. "
Unnecessary rules
According to PayPal founder and Facebook investor Peter Thiel in 2011, "Net neutrality has not been necessary until now.I see no reason why it suddenly becomes important, when the internet has functioned well for the past 15 years without it.... Government efforts to regulate technology has been remarkably counterproductive in the past. "Max Levchin, another PayPal co-founder, voiced similar statements, told CNBC," The Internet is not broken, and it gets here without government regulations and may be in part due to the lack of government regulations. " Opponents of the new federal clean neutrality policy point to the success of the Internet as a sign that new regulations are not needed. They argue that the freedom on which websites, ISPs and consumers have to resolve their own disputes and compete through innovation is the reason why the internet has so quickly succeeded. One of the most outspoken critics of clean neutrality rules is Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who points out that "innovation [on the Internet] is happening without having to go to the government and say 'Mother, can I?' What happens when the government starts to set up service as a public utility is to calculate everything and freeze it in place. "In regulating how the internet is provided, opponents argue that the government will hamper innovation on the web.
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, one of the two commissioners who opposed the Internet neutrality proposal, criticized the FCC rules on internet neutrality, stating that perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or dislike content they dislike : "Proof of persistent threats None, it's all anecdotes, hypotheses, and hysteria A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago Comcast shut down BitTorrent traffic to make it easy to upload an eight-year jam then Apple introduces Facetime over Wi-Fi first, the cellular network later on This example of picayune and stale is not enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality The bogeyman has never been that easy. "FCC Commissioner Mike O'Reilly, the opposing commissioner others, also claimed that the decision was a solution to a hypothetical problem, "Even sete lasted for three weeks, it was hard for me to believe that the Commission was forming a whole Title II/net neutral regime to protect against hypothetical harm. There was not a shred of evidence that every aspect of this structure was necessary. The DC circuit calls the previous version, the scale being reduced as 'prophylactic' approach I call it guilt by the imagination. "In the Chicago Tribune article, Commissioner FCC Pai and Joshua Wright of the Federal Trade Commission argue that" the Internet is not broken, and we do not need the president's plan to 'fix it'. otherwise. The Internet is an unparalleled success story. It is a free, open, and expanding platform. "
Inability to make the Internet accessible to poor people
Opponents argue that net neutrality rules prevent providers from providing more affordable Internet access to those who can not afford it. A concept known as "zero-rating", ISPs will not be able to provide internet access for free or at a lower cost to the poor under net neutrality rules.
For example, low-income users who are unable to pay for Internet services that use bandwidth such as streaming video can be exempt from payment through subsidies or advertisements. However, under the rules, ISPs will not be able to differentiate traffic, thus forcing low-income users to pay for high bandwidth usage like other users.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, created Wikipedia Zero to provide Wikipedia for free on mobile to low-income users, especially in developing countries. However, this practice violates the rules of net neutrality because traffic should be treated the same regardless of the user's ability to pay.
In 2014, Chile banned the practice of Internet service providers giving users free access to websites like Wikipedia and Facebook, saying the practice violates net neutrality rules. In 2016, India banned the Free Basics application from Internet.org, which provides users in less developed countries with free access to various websites such as Wikipedia, BBC, Dictionary.com, health sites, Facebook, ESPN and weather reports - who decided that the initiative violated net neutrality.
Inability to efficiently allocate Internet traffic
The net neutrality rule will prevent traffic from being allocated to the most needed users, according to Internet Pioneer David Farber. Because net neutrality rules prevent traffic discrimination, networks should treat the traffic as important as non-critical traffic. According to Farber, "When traffic soars beyond the network's ability to carry it, something gets delayed." When choosing what is suspended, it makes sense to allow the network to pull in traffic from, say, a patient's heart monitor over traffic sending music downloads. also to allow network operators to limit truly harmful traffic, such as viruses, worms, and spam. "
Related matter
Data discrimination
Tim Wu, despite supporters of network neutrality, claims that the internet is currently not neutral as its application of best efforts generally favor file transfer and other insensitive traffic through real-time communication. Generally, networks that block multiple nodes or services for network customers are usually expected to be less useful to customers than those that do not. Therefore, in order for the network to remain significantly neutral requires either that the customer be unconcerned about a certain non-neutrality or the customer has no meaningful provider choice, otherwise they may switch to another provider with fewer restrictions.
While network neutrality debates continue, network providers often go into peering settings among themselves. This agreement often specifies how certain information flows should be treated. In addition, network providers often implement policies such as blocking port 25 to prevent unsafe systems from serving as spam relays, or other ports commonly used by decentralized music search apps that apply peer-to-peer network models. They also present a service requirement that often includes rules about the use of certain apps as part of their contract with users. Most consumer Internet service providers implement such policies. The MIT Mantix Bridge Block Measurement Project is a measurement effort to characterize Internet port blocking and potentially discriminatory practices. However, peering setting effects among network providers are only local to peers entering into p
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments