Understanding what net neutrality is:
Literally, net neutrality means open internet to all; by destroying it there could be both pros and cons depending on its different perfective.
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.
Different perspectives of net neutrality:
In America, it has been a burning topic since last few days regarding where to keep the keep neutrality or to destroy it. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made the right move Thursday when it undid an Obama-era power grab commonly referred to as “net neutrality,” ending the agency’s micro-management of the internet. The FCC action benefits consumers and ensures that the internet will be free from burdensome government control.
In a 3-2 vote, the FCC approved the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. The order reverses a decision made by the Obama administration to regulate internet service providers (ISPs) under the Telecommunications Act of 1934 – a law intended to establish rules for phone and local electric companies enacted decades before the development of the internet.
Although the internet operated effectively and efficiently without net neutrality, Obama’s FCC in 2015 suddenly and inexplicably determined a radical transformation was required to “save” it. The meaning and scope of net neutrality have been muddied over the past two years because information technology experts use the term very differently than political activists and many in the media do.
When information technology experts speak of “net neutrality,” they usually mean consumers should be able to access the legal content they want using the legal applications and devices they want. For example, Verizon’s network should not block data going to and from an AT&T customer’s computer. However, under the Obama administration, liberal activists took a concept everyone agreed on and warped its definition to satisfy their goal to expand government’s power over the internet.
Obama’s net neutrality rule – officially called the Open Internet Order – prohibited a practice called “paid prioritization.” This is a kind of contractual agreement between a content provider like Netflix and a network owner like Verizon. Such agreements allow data to travel on less-congested networks when main routes are clogged up, and there are very good reasons why paid prioritization should be allowed.
Therefore, a content provider – especially companies like Netflix and YouTube – may wish to pay a little bit extra to a network company to guarantee better quality for its customers. Further, because YouTube, Netflix, and other internet video streaming businesses consume lots of data compared to almost all others going online, it might make sense for Verizon and other ISPs to ask such businesses to pay a little more for their services.
Effects of “destroying net neutrality” in America:
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday abrogated the very limited net neutrality regulations that the Obama administration had put in place. In a season when Washington politics has been overwhelmed by the naked greed of special interests, this may win pride of place as the single most greedy, corrupt and damaging such action.
It is hardly a secret that American telecommunications markets are monopolized by a very few large corporation, and that the current F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, worked for one of those large firms, Verizon. The end of net neutrality will allow Mr. Pai’s former employer to extract higher profits without returning better service to the American people.
Who really thinks that allowing the large telecom corporations more control over what Americans see and read is a good thing? Giving monopolies more power will make it harder for new companies to enter the marketplace and limit the pace of innovation.
In sum, Mr. Pai and the end of net neutrality exemplify everything that is currently wrong with Washington. Vested interests corrupt the policy process, lie to the American people and make decisions that further concentrate wealth and power in the hands of an elite few, with bleak consequences for the American people and our economy.
Taking a clear stand against this may at the very least increase the chance that the inevitable next such outrage can be stopped.
What started the debate around net neutrality in India?
Facebook’s big advertisement campaign for its Free Basics app that gives users selective access to services like communication, healthcare, education, job listings and farming information — all without data charges – triggered the debate on net neutrality. For this move, Facebook was criticized for handpicking internet services and for discriminating against companies not on the list, including Facebook’s rivals.
What is India’s position on net neutrality?
Last year, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) backed net neutrality and barred operators from allowing differential pricing for data in India. It said that no service provider will offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content or enter into any arrangement, agreement or contract with any person that has the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data.
However, it is feared that scrapping of the net neutrality rules in the US sets a dangerous precedent for other countries like India where emboldened regulators could pursue similar routes.
Net neutrality is that topic where the against and the for party both support a validate points to superior their sides, but both have different consequences for different people regarding their needs and perspective of the topic.