Net neutrality is the principle that all content and services on a network should be treated equally. Supporters argue for government legislation to prevent larger commercial websites from dominating the internet, while opponents suggest it is unnecessary and could lead to increased censorship and invasion of privacy. There is no law mandating net neutrality in the US, but some countries have laws based on this principle. There is also disagreement over whether wireless internet should be subject to net neutrality regulations.
Net neutrality, often shortened to “net neutrality,” is a company philosophy that supports the idea that all content and services using a network should be treated equally. While it refers to any form of network, be it telephone service or cable television, the term is most often used to talk about Internet services where all users have the right to send and receive packets of information equally. According to the philosophy of net neutrality, Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, major online services and other companies cannot limit or filter a user’s access to services provided by competitors.
Topics in support
Proponents of net neutrality suggest that some sort of government legislation is needed to prevent larger commercial websites from dominating the internet. A government agency similar to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could be empowered to oversee the core network to prevent the formation of “robber barons”, companies that could stifle competition by controlling key points in the Internet transmission network . If a company can control what content is delivered or allow some data to travel faster across the Internet than other data, it is argued, it can suppress opinions it disagrees with or prevent smaller competitors from doing business.
Neutrality levels the playing field for commercial websites, ensuring that a small online bookstore still has the opportunity to receive visitors, even if large corporate websites are more popular. It prevents one email provider from blocking email from a rival provider, just like a phone company can’t refuse to handle calls made by another telecommunications company. Net neutrality also doesn’t allow a large company to pay to get its content delivered earlier or faster than a competitor, which would give it an unfair advantage.
Arguments against
Opponents of net neutrality often include those companies that would be regulated, including cable television companies, major ISPs and large commercial websites. Some suggest that net neutrality is unnecessary because other network systems are controlled by their major contributors and are still capable of functioning fairly. If an ISP blocks its customers from accessing certain sites, for example, those consumers could switch to a different service provider; content blocking, it could be argued, would make the ISP less competitive.
Other critics argue that greater government control over the Internet’s basic network could lead to increased censorship and invasion of privacy. In some countries where telecommunications networks are largely controlled by the government, there have been cases of blocked content and services because they can be used to build an opposition against the ruling party. Furthermore, they argue that companies should not be legally required to receive or transmit information from competitors or other websites that they deem objectionable, which has happened in isolated incidents. If all data is to be transmitted in a neutral manner, it could be argued that an ISP may not be legally allowed to block spam or virus emails.
Also, there are some Internet content providers whose services use much more bandwidth than others. As more and more users access streaming video, audio and other heavy content, the whole network is under stress. When these sites are in high demand, it can create a bottleneck, slowing down the transmission of all data to all users. Many ISPs argue that since these providers use the most bandwidth, it’s only fair that they pay more for it; burdening data-heavy users more in a tiered structure could also allow the ISP to improve the entire network, making everyone’s data transfer faster.
Internet cablato vs. wireless
Supporters and opponents of net neutrality sometimes differ in their opinion on whether the network is wired or wireless. A wired network is a network that is provided over wires, such as cable, digital subscriber line (DSL), telephone lines, or fiber optic (FTTP). Wireless Internet, on the other hand, includes WiFi®, WiMAX, satellite and mobile broadband. Due to the sharp increase in data usage on mobile devices in particular, some groups who usually support net neutrality are more willing to compromise when it comes to wireless Internet service.
There’s disagreement that wireless Internet — specifically, that accessed on cell phones — is somehow fundamentally different from what most people use in their homes or offices. Mobile Internet providers often argue that if they are unable to impose some level of control over their networks, they will be forced to raise their prices to make enough money to be profitable. They also suggest that there will be less incentive to improve their networks or develop new technologies if they cannot take advantage of them.
Regulation
As of 2012, there is no law in the United States mandating net neutrality, although an informal agreement is in place to defend users’ rights. Japan and some European countries have Internet access laws based on the principle of net neutrality. In some cases, companies are allowed to block certain services or charge some content providers more, but there are transparency guidelines that require those companies to disclose to their customers any data priorities, bandwidth caps, or other methods they use. by the ISP to control the traffic moving through the network.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
