Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the Internet should be treated equally. But with more people streaming data-rich video and playing online games, the Internet faces congestion concerns. Should carriers be able to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users? Should sites that generate massive traffic -- like Google and Yahoo! -- pay extra fees? The U.S. Government is examining Net Neutrality and its financial, legal and social implications. Do we need federal intervention to ensure fairness, or is this an issue for the market to work out?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should the Government Regulate Net Neutrality?
Net-neutrality framework on the Internet Model
AT&T opposes proposals to regulate its move to speed up certain services and slow down some other.
Business Corporations are highly skilled in drafting arguments as part of their lobbying exercise. Traditionally, large business corporations are known to devote time and resources to lobby for a policy framework most favourable to their own interests.
While it may be true that there are some micro-aspects of a company such as AT&T having to choose to prioritize services, there is a danger of such freedom leading to such situations - to throw names for a hypothetical illustration - as msn slowing down You Tube downloads or Google sending messages originating from yahoo.com to its spam folders.
There are several technical and non-technical aspects that make it impertive to strengthen a frame work for net-neutrality. Traditional opposition from Business is on the grounds that Net Neutrality regulations would pave way for Government intervention. Government intervention may not be the only way by which Net Neutrality could be achieved. The various aspects related to Net Neutrality need to be elaborately agreed upon and brought into force by evloution of standards and conventions by the Internet Community.
There are two different aspects that I wish to emphaize. One is that a Net Neutrality framework is imperative. The other aspect is that the need for such a framework ought not to be exploited by those who want to "regulate" the Internet.
An effective Net Neutrality framework has to emerge, without compromising on the present Internet Model which is a user-centric, community model.
All the arguments that I see against Net Neutrality are arguments that attempt to scare the proponents o the concept of Net Neutrality that say that Net Neutrality would mean complex legislations, which in turn would lead to higher legal costs and higher cost of access to the user !!! It is a very imaginative argument that propogates an anti-NN campaign, equating NN with an Internet of Legislation.
In the Internet Model Net Neutality can be established and managed with least interference from Governments.
- Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
October 19, 2008 9:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.