A person using internet should be aware of what content he is asking to view on internet and why. All the content should have equal access to the user and no service providers should be able to handle these activities. Openness of internet should not be dependent on any internet service provider companies. In this paper analysis has been done on the following aspects of internet neutrality. Internet throttling and net neutrality trends in market, arguments and claims by different companies against network neutrality, steps taken by companies in favor of net neutrality, legal implications done in favor of net neutrality.
If internet throttling and neutrality is justified or not would certainly be answered in that it is not justified because it is not in favor of mankind. Although there are some downsides to this but no justification can outweigh the significance of openness of internet. Hence net throttling and net neutrality are not at all justified; this paper discusses the points against this practice. Internet Neutrality Practices It has been a known fact about them since 2005 that Rogers people used to incorporate a conduct limiting some of the services and applications at intended times.
Now this needs a strategy so as to shape data traffic in a way that the company could not detect it as that service which it is blocking currently. The data packets should be shaped in a form so that they don’t look like those services which are being blocked by the company. Encrypting the data packet beforehand would resolve this to an extent (Giest, 2007). Consequences may contain higher use of Bit Torrent like software on which bigger files sharing is done and ISPs are not even aware of such heavy usage by the user.
Another consequence may be the hindrances of open source application development caused by reducing the amount of bandwidth. Reduced bandwidth certainly damages the ability to communicate abroad and spread the scope of work worldwide. It is worse that service provider would be taken advantage over the content in an unfair way. Conspicuous deceleration would be met when an ISP is messing it up by considering email traffic as the Bit Torrent traffic. Obviously many institutions are facing problems by reshaping the data packets when they access their mailboxes inside the institution or outside (Giest, 2007).
Net Neutrality and Companies’ Perspective ISPs should set up their dedicated customer care serving the complaints of a consumer in order to ensure net neutrality and assurance of not degrading basic internet services like email, sharing etc. Later it was implemented by FCC agency under CCTC (Giest, 2007). The idea of consumers complaint centre is critically deceived by Rogers and Telus in a way that it is just the waste of money to cater consumers with their network and internet access problems. The CCTC i. e.
Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunication Services is derivative of CRTC and is abiding by the steps taken by Canadian government to avoid net neutrality. Rogers’s personnel completely debase the idea which let all telecommunications service provider become member of CCTS. The idea behind this comment was that they had to resolve for about 4000 complaints and spend $400,000. The point is that when competitive forces are here to race for good services provision what is the need for any ruling commission to monitor the consumer complaints.
Similarly a personnel from Telus argues that consumers have right to select the service they want to have then there is no point in being sensitive about their complaints and problems. If a customer is not satisfied, there is a whole world of services to chose. These activities are not letting any company to have competitive advantage. Bell’s personnel share his thoughts and declare a disagreement with the criticism of CCTS. Bibic had been the major one in formulating CCTS agency and is included in the board of directors.
This company’s idea is to make CCTS better rather than having a fight on subscribing to it (Nowak, 2008). Importance of Net Neutrality Open internet is valuable because it promotes visionary attitudes and democracy. Risks to net neutrality are being caused by companies that provide internet services. Their aim is to show things which they want the users to view first. These companies are keenly interested in throwing the net neutrality kinds of concepts away as these concepts stop them to slow down the speed and become discriminator.
Hence the concept which basically takes away user’s ability to direct himself for his online commotions is referred as net neutrality. Telecom and broadband companies are on the verge of criticism by a set of institutions and people because they are leading these activities which transform the way of internet functioning. If these kinds of activities continue to happen, there would probably be a situation when all the big brands will be asking them for publicity of their campaign (Anderson, 2009). Ars Technica reports quote comments of some ISPs which say to CRTC i.
e. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that practices of net throttling and net neutrality come in favor of users and internet services and society as well. These favors may be in form of child pornography, spam control and virus protection. Graduated response rules may be introduced to outset the users in society. Copyright infringement can be accused and additionally the new CRTC laws can limit the ability to choke P2P uploads which are available everywhere today. Network congestion is caused mainly by these P2P file sharing.
Therefore in congestion situations throttling and neutrality can be used effectively to boost up latency; which ensures the degree of reliability of the network. (Slashdot, 2009). Measures taken by some companies favoring Net Neutrality Google has also supported network neutrality along with Apple & co. , Microsoft, Network Neutrality Squad, Consumer’s Union, etc. Google has started developing tools that detect net throttling or net neutrality which ensures a fair-play of internet service providers companies. This gives user community to have the ability to know the endeavors by their ISP (Parrack, 2008).
Some of the ISPs like Copowi have taken steps to get rid of net neutrality in a way by offering pure services with guarantee of net neutrality. Although this offer is for them who do not have much issues over charges but who measure a service with a single factor that is quality. As the number of subscription to such internet service providers would begin, the price for obtaining a net neutral service would cut down gradually. This would also break the monopoly of two or three major ISPs which are leading the scenario i. e. Rogers, Telus, and Bull. However, Copowi is going to pay higher amounts for unregulated bandwidth access to Telus.
The guarantee is firm enough because network neutrality is supposed to be the company’s basic motto and they have to fulfill that in order to gain credibility. The indemnities that an ISP would not violate regulations, infringe the public rights, no interference in user’s operation; no disturbance to users of network or of other networks can allow an ISP to take action against splintering of any of the above clauses or of Acceptable Use Policy (Anderson N. , 2007). Criticism by Companies against Net Neutrality This was known that CRTC have taken a notice of handling network traffic in an unfair manner.
May be this was the root cause of CCTS establishment. Besides, Bell and Rogers were going on top for their discriminatory treatment of analyzing network data streams and lowering the bandwidth due to huge traffic for cutting the costs. Lowering of bandwidth was specially applied for peer to peer transactions which were protested by public greatly and CRTC was forced to investigate the matter. Bell, Telus and Rogers denied the facts of throttling any internet application. But it has definitely been outrageous to give tough time to the ISPs which used to force them to buy internet access from these companies only (Nowak, 2008).
The complaints forced a federal communication commission’s inquiry and John Silver answered to those inquiries by stating that FCC’s decision to punish such companies is a triumph because this is the way ISPs will not try to block or limit accesses and bandwidths in future. The people behind this bold step include FCC chairman and Commissioners Copps and Adelstein and their effort for open internet and free market is plausible. When this is not done at all to limit users from accessing their intended contents then the measures for avoiding this should be taken.
A lot more is expected from FCC and Congress in order to proactively fight against network neutrality (Silver, 2008). An internet service provider company was chosen as the one to be punished for limiting access to the open internet. An enforcement order was prepared for that ISP and it was forced to stop limiting and blocking the access. Moreover this ISP was forced to divulge the methods which impede the traffic of internet. The allegations on that company were about the peer-to-peer content blockage and propagation of forged signals.
This wrong propagation discontinues the connection between the sender and receiver (Silver, 2008). An active topic of net neutrality is prevailing in the media as well as mainstream media too. This issue is related to free information exchange through internet. Many countries have established bodies for handling this matter as the federal bodies in America to redefine the way information, trade, and users interact is a depressing and subject of concern for economy. FCC handles the kind of equality which defines the equal presence of everyone on internet (Block, 2007).
This would not be a good practice if a download is available to only those people who are allowed by ISPs. Discriminating attitude that the one who pays higher would get a better service is not acceptable if not predefined. Internet should not be favoring only specific sites and contents or applications over all the others to be available to user. Internet should treat all information there or thereabouts equally. These deeds should not be done because they take away user’s control from the internet activity; also it would force the matter in a disdainful way which is supported by both network workers and internet service providers.
The ISPs want that the government should leave investigation and allow the market to dictate the network directives. The ISPs just want to improve services by considering competition in industry not by following regulations of any agency put by government (Block, 2007). This was obvious that FCC was alarmed by knowing that broadband and telecommunication companies have started doing theft kind of things like blockage of VoIP application. When it happened for the first time, the matter was handled straightforwardly which resulted in paying fine and agreement on allowing VoIP applications in future.
FCC had some policies and high aims. It announced its jurisdiction which enables someone to standardize telecommunication services; ensuring that the network is being managed neutrally (Block, 2007). Legal Implications done in favor of Net Neutrality Any regulations that FCC undergoes are tested out by Communications Act whether they are allowed to regulate certain issue or not. FCC is regulated to control net neutrality according to the policy statement 05-151. This policy states that consumers are given the right to access any content which they choose.
It states that they also have a right to program which they choose. Consumers are able to attach any device to networks legally allowed and they also encompass the right to select any service provider, content provider, or network prevailing in competitive industry (Block, 2007). General guiding doctrines of regulation like mentioned above are assumed by the agency. The operators, regulator, and providers are advised to justify all their rules from any of these doctrines if the rule is related to net neutrality.
These doctrines are guidelines for the companies as well so that they may think before enforcing any service which is not in contrast with them. Infringement to any of these doctrines would force FCC to take action against that company. These doctrines are generalized to broader spectrum and incorporate almost everything inside them so it is not worthwhile to ask what the domain of these principles is (Block, 2007). Having a general kind of policy with no specifications does not bind any one to this but once the rule making process completes it will become a law.
Political awareness about net neutrality issue aroused after policy statement by FCC. Political consciousness about the issue let the FCC begin the investigation process where it resolved many issues pertaining to net neutrality including peer to peer file sharing and VoIP blocking (Block, 2007). FCC introduced consent agreement to get a guarantee that the concerned company will not be performing such acts against throttling and neutrality. Therefore it can be stated that net neutrality has been supported greatly by FCC agency.
Companies like Rogers and Telus which are against net neutrality have only one option for FCC which is to contact congress for introducing new laws. Later on bills were passed on the issues regarding net neutrality. One bill was Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act and the other was Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (Block, 2007). This law was called neutrality bill which condemns the data discrimination performed through content’s source and user employed devices.
The second bill presented sturdier stipulations for encompassing net neutrality and this bill was first rejected before the approval. Till now several bills for ensuring net neutrality like Internet Freedom Preservation Act which announces not to interfere with users on the same network or different. It also announces not to block content and sources of content or use of useful legal network device. Provider should be enabling application, services, or content which is provided with reasonability, which is rapidly relaying content, and which is not charged for different rates and charges for diverse contents.
Broadband services should enable standalone services with prohibiting the procure amount for cable or VoIP application service. There is a chance that protection of net neutrality would be fortified shortly (Block, 2007). Internet Subscriber Notification System Rogers which has been on the verge of facing blames about traffic shaping researched and went beyond neutrality. Controversies were their against this company that it is one of the major contender in throttling encrypted data stream traffic which keeps away from heavy downloads consuming greater bandwidth.
The technique they used was insertion of usage messages inside the consumers’ unencrypted data streams. The content contained in those messages was the bandwidth consumption by a Rogers’s user. This system is known as ISNS i. e. Internet Subscriber Notification System and it warns consumer if he approaches his monthly 75 GB data cap or data limit. With this way and some other ISPs have started notifying their users about their bandwidth limitations. This useful information benefits the customer in a way and it was confirmed when the user responses were received by the company (Giest, 2007).
Conclusion The claims by ISP companies are that the user influx on potential timings let them reduce the bandwidth for a while, this claim is partially correct but it is not justified. When a user is paying an ISP for a specific speed and bandwidth, then ISPs should somehow manage it in both the rush and casual hours. These acts by internet service providers are in favor of internet throttling and internet neutrality therefore these justifications are of no use, as these acts would now lead the ISPs towards legal proceedings which are harmful for credibility of any company.
References Anderson, N. (2007, August 19). Meet Copowi, the world’s first ISP to guarantee network neutrality. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from ars technica: http://arstechnica. com/old/content/2007/08/Meet-Copowi-the-worlds-first-ISP-to-guarantee-network-neutrality. ars Anderson, S. (2009, January 15). Who Will Control Our Digital Soul? Retrieved March 26, 2009, from The Tyee: http://thetyee. ca/Mediacheck/2009/01/15/DigitalSoul/ Block, R. (2007, March 29). Net neutrality and the FCC: what’s being done to preserve it.
Retrieved March 27, 2009, from engadget: http://www. engadget. com/2007/03/29/net-neutrality-and-the-fcc-whats-being-done-to-preserve-it/ Giest, M. (2007, April 5). The Unintended Consequences of Rogers’ Packet Shaping. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from Michael Geist: http://www. michaelgeist. ca/content/view/1859/125/ Nowak, P. (2008, June 18). Rogers, Telus criticize consumer complaints agency. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from CBC News Canada: http://www. cbc. ca/technology/story/2008/06/17/telecom-complaints. html Parrack, D. (2008, June 15).
Google backing net neutrality-developing ISP throttling detector tools. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Blorge: http://tech. blorge. com/Structure:%20/2008/06/15/google-backing-net-neutrality-developing-isp-throttling-detector-tools/ Silver, J. (2008, August 1). Comcast Decision ‘Major Victory’ for Open Internet. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from Free Press: http://www. freepress. net/node/42937 Slashdot. (2009, February 28). Canadian ISPs Speak Out Against Net Neutrality. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Slashdot: http://tech. slashdot. org/article. pl? sid=09/02/28/1719202&from=rssSample Essay of AssignmentExpert.com