|
Key principles of net neutrality include
|
- Equal Treatment of Data: Net neutrality advocates for the equal treatment of all data on the Internet. This means that ISPs should not favor or block particular websites or services, nor should they throttle (slow down) or prioritize certain types of data traffic.
- No Discrimination: Net neutrality opposes any form of discrimination against specific websites, services, or applications. ISPs should not provide preferential treatment to their content or that of affiliated partners, nor should they disadvantage competitors.
- Transparency: ISPs are expected to be transparent about their network management practices, ensuring that consumers are aware of how their Internet traffic is being treated.
- No Paid Prioritization: Net neutrality discourages the practice of paid prioritization, where companies or individuals could pay ISPs for faster or better access to their content, creating a tiered Internet.
- Innovation and Competition: Supporters of net neutrality argue that an open Internet fosters innovation and competition by allowing new and small players to compete on an equal footing with established ones.
- Consumer Rights: Net neutrality is seen as protecting the rights of consumers by ensuring that they have unrestricted access to the content and services of their choice without interference from ISPs.
|
|
Internet.org and Free basics – A case of violation of Net Neutrality
|
- Internet.org is a partnership between Social Networking services company Facebook and six other companies that plan to bring affordable access to selected Internet services to less developed countries.
- “Free Basics” is the name of the app that delivers these services.
- However, this was a violation of the concept of Net Neutrality.
- Regulators banned the Free Basics service in India based on the “Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations”.
|
|
Airtel Zero – A case of violation of Net Neutrality
|
- Airtel announced Airtel Zero, an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.
- Airtel Zero was widely perceived as a violation of net neutrality.
- By paying to be on Airtel Zero, companies could make sure that their users get free access to their service, while smaller players are at a disadvantage.
- However, Airtel has said that zero-rating does not violate net neutrality as it lowers the cost of access and it is “non-discriminatory”.
- To prevent such things, it appears necessary to have a specific mandating a neutral internet.
|
|
Arguments supporting Net Neutrality
|
- Services on the internet must be equally accessible to all and no discrimination should be there.
- Without Net neutrality, the right to freedom of speech and expression would be affected.
- It would be detrimental from the consumer point of view too.
- Net neutrality will promote architecture and innovative development of the Internet.
- The Internet is the result of the time and creativity of many volunteers for many decades and hence it should not be left in the hands of the few, hence ethically wrong if it is done away with.
- Without Net neutrality, the new start-ups would be at a disadvantage.
|
|
Arguments against Net Neutrality
|
- The economic principle of paying differently for different levels of service and experience is recognized by Differential Pricing.
- Massive investment loss would be there.
- Future investments in telecommunications infrastructure will be curtailed, thereby impacting user experience.
- Applications that use the voice over internet protocol (VoIP), have led to a reduction in voice-based traffic.
- It will impact the government’s Digital India initiative.
- It is ethically questionable because operators have to invest in maintaining and expanding the Internet’s infrastructure to support new services while most benefits are reaped by Internet content companies like Google, Facebook, etc.
- The Internet has survived because of little or no regulation, hence creativity and future development should not be crippled.
|
