Net neutrality slowly would expire..Google & fb to dominate
Net neutrality what it is?
Net neutrality is an idea which stipulates that internet service providers (ISPs) only enable general web connectivity and cannot selectively connect to one website and not the other. Whether you are reading the news or browsing photographs on the web, you get the same internet speed. All ISPs open all (legal) websites whether they like it or not. They do not slow down access to Facebook or speed up access to YouTube. They do not charge extra money from Twitter or Flickr for speeding up connection to these websites. In sum, ISPs are content-agnostic. They just provide the connection at a speed for which a user is paying. Also, unlike cable TV where you have to pay for channels, for the internet you just pay for the connection.
Net neutrality has some obvious advantages. It is great from the perspective of freedom of speech. It is up to a user to access what he wants on the web.
But a bigger advantage of net neutrality is that it creates a level-playing field for all web services and websites. Whether it is a blog owned and managed by one person or Facebook, which employs thousands of engineers, all websites have access to the same connection speed. This allows people to innovate. Imagine, there is no net neutrality and ISPs provide connection speed to a particular website or service depending on how much that service pays. In this case a website like Facebook, which is big and rich will be able to pay more to get better connection speed. But a startup, which wants to challenge Facebook, will not have the same kind of resources. It won't be able to pay ISPs what Facebook can. Result? For users, Facebook will open faster on their computers. The website of the new startup will be slow and hence will never get popular.
Net neutrality sounds like a nice idea. So why do some companies not want to follow it?
While net neutrality is just an idea, albeit the one that has shaped the internet, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the US has been putting in place some rules for the last 10 years to make sure that this idea continues to drive the internet industry forward. However, powerful ISPs in the US are not very happy about it. They argue that they should be allowed to shape and manage the internet traffic the way they want because that is the future. These ISPs say that building internet infrastructure is expensive and as more and more people connect to the web and new services like YouTube and Netflix, which consume lots of bandwidth, come online, they have to shape traffic to maintain quality.
The ISPs also argue that when companies like Google are making huge sums of money from services like YouTube, which has high bandwidth requirement, they should be allowed to charge for connecting consumers to these services. In sum, they want a share in the money companies like YouTube and Netflix are making.
Finally, the argument is that traffic also needs to be shaped so that some services can get higher priority over others. ISPs say that internet speed for critical services like credit card payment should get priority over something like opening a video of cats playing with dogs.
In 2010, FCC came up with a set of new rules to maintain net neutrality. ISPs did not like that and in 2011 challenged the rules in court. On January 14, a federal appeals court termed the FCC rules invalid.
What did the appeals court in the US say?
There are lots of legalities and technicalities in the court order that invalidates the FCC rules. It doesn't invalidate the idea of net neutrality. It only says that the 2010 FCC rules have no legal basis. Here is a key passage from the ruling:
We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission's still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of "telecommunications services" but instead as providers of "information services," see supra at 9-10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): "A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services."
Does the court order spell death of net neutrality?
No, it does not, although it definitely allows ISPs a little more wiggle room to experiment with how they provide internet services. In an interview with Recode, a technology website, Susan Crawford, a law professor, explained that the FCC has an easy way out to enforce net neutrality. At least technically by classifying ISPs as common carriers. "All it has to do is relabel these services as common carriage services. It's likely that's what they'll end up doing," Crawford said.
However, the debate over net neutrality is not just about the rules. There is lots of politics involved and different players have different stake in this game. ISPs in the US are powerful and have strong political ties. They can lobby hard to get what they want. At one of point of time, companies like Google and Facebook were staunchly in support for net neutrality but now when they rule the web, they don't show the same agility in protecting the nature of internet that allowed them to grow so big.
Still, the idea of net neutrality is the foundation of the web as we know it. And it will be difficult to do away with it for any company, a group of organizations or even a government without forging a broad coalition.
How is the ruling going to impact you, the user?
Currently, there is going to be no impact on end users. Even in the US, consumers will likely get the same internet access. In the long run, however, there could be some impact. The biggest impact of this ruling is that it is going to embolden ISPs. They will like to keep the status quo and resist if FCC attempts to formulate new rules to protect the idea of net neutrality. Gradually, ISPs will like to move towards a system of web connectivity where they have more control over the traffic flowing through their servers.
But whenever that happens, the change will be gradual and not without any resistance. Any move to shape traffic in a significant way will likely attract lawsuits in the US, given that this continues to be a grey area and law is not very clear on it. One day, maybe the US Supreme Court will rule on the topic of net neutrality. Or maybe the US lawmakers take up the matter and come out with a set of rules that will either enforce net neutrality or do away with it. But all of this is not happening any time soon. For now you can keep on using your internet connection the way you want.
Net neutrality is an idea which stipulates that internet service providers (ISPs) only enable general web connectivity and cannot selectively connect to one website and not the other. Whether you are reading the news or browsing photographs on the web, you get the same internet speed. All ISPs open all (legal) websites whether they like it or not. They do not slow down access to Facebook or speed up access to YouTube. They do not charge extra money from Twitter or Flickr for speeding up connection to these websites. In sum, ISPs are content-agnostic. They just provide the connection at a speed for which a user is paying. Also, unlike cable TV where you have to pay for channels, for the internet you just pay for the connection.
Net neutrality has some obvious advantages. It is great from the perspective of freedom of speech. It is up to a user to access what he wants on the web.
But a bigger advantage of net neutrality is that it creates a level-playing field for all web services and websites. Whether it is a blog owned and managed by one person or Facebook, which employs thousands of engineers, all websites have access to the same connection speed. This allows people to innovate. Imagine, there is no net neutrality and ISPs provide connection speed to a particular website or service depending on how much that service pays. In this case a website like Facebook, which is big and rich will be able to pay more to get better connection speed. But a startup, which wants to challenge Facebook, will not have the same kind of resources. It won't be able to pay ISPs what Facebook can. Result? For users, Facebook will open faster on their computers. The website of the new startup will be slow and hence will never get popular.
Net neutrality sounds like a nice idea. So why do some companies not want to follow it?
While net neutrality is just an idea, albeit the one that has shaped the internet, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the US has been putting in place some rules for the last 10 years to make sure that this idea continues to drive the internet industry forward. However, powerful ISPs in the US are not very happy about it. They argue that they should be allowed to shape and manage the internet traffic the way they want because that is the future. These ISPs say that building internet infrastructure is expensive and as more and more people connect to the web and new services like YouTube and Netflix, which consume lots of bandwidth, come online, they have to shape traffic to maintain quality.
The ISPs also argue that when companies like Google are making huge sums of money from services like YouTube, which has high bandwidth requirement, they should be allowed to charge for connecting consumers to these services. In sum, they want a share in the money companies like YouTube and Netflix are making.
Finally, the argument is that traffic also needs to be shaped so that some services can get higher priority over others. ISPs say that internet speed for critical services like credit card payment should get priority over something like opening a video of cats playing with dogs.
In 2010, FCC came up with a set of new rules to maintain net neutrality. ISPs did not like that and in 2011 challenged the rules in court. On January 14, a federal appeals court termed the FCC rules invalid.
What did the appeals court in the US say?
There are lots of legalities and technicalities in the court order that invalidates the FCC rules. It doesn't invalidate the idea of net neutrality. It only says that the 2010 FCC rules have no legal basis. Here is a key passage from the ruling:
We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission's still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of "telecommunications services" but instead as providers of "information services," see supra at 9-10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): "A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services."
Does the court order spell death of net neutrality?
No, it does not, although it definitely allows ISPs a little more wiggle room to experiment with how they provide internet services. In an interview with Recode, a technology website, Susan Crawford, a law professor, explained that the FCC has an easy way out to enforce net neutrality. At least technically by classifying ISPs as common carriers. "All it has to do is relabel these services as common carriage services. It's likely that's what they'll end up doing," Crawford said.
However, the debate over net neutrality is not just about the rules. There is lots of politics involved and different players have different stake in this game. ISPs in the US are powerful and have strong political ties. They can lobby hard to get what they want. At one of point of time, companies like Google and Facebook were staunchly in support for net neutrality but now when they rule the web, they don't show the same agility in protecting the nature of internet that allowed them to grow so big.
Still, the idea of net neutrality is the foundation of the web as we know it. And it will be difficult to do away with it for any company, a group of organizations or even a government without forging a broad coalition.
How is the ruling going to impact you, the user?
Currently, there is going to be no impact on end users. Even in the US, consumers will likely get the same internet access. In the long run, however, there could be some impact. The biggest impact of this ruling is that it is going to embolden ISPs. They will like to keep the status quo and resist if FCC attempts to formulate new rules to protect the idea of net neutrality. Gradually, ISPs will like to move towards a system of web connectivity where they have more control over the traffic flowing through their servers.
But whenever that happens, the change will be gradual and not without any resistance. Any move to shape traffic in a significant way will likely attract lawsuits in the US, given that this continues to be a grey area and law is not very clear on it. One day, maybe the US Supreme Court will rule on the topic of net neutrality. Or maybe the US lawmakers take up the matter and come out with a set of rules that will either enforce net neutrality or do away with it. But all of this is not happening any time soon. For now you can keep on using your internet connection the way you want.
Comments
Post a Comment