Reaction Paper on "Net Neutrality Network"

Reaction Paper 5 pages (1631 words) Sources: 5

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Net Neutrality

Network Neutrality, also known as Net Neutrality, entails the concept of a free and open Internet, leveling the playing field for big corporations and small, as well as individual business owners, alike. Recently, however, arguments have arisen over the validity of this model for the Internet, which has become a kind of virtual business universe in itself. Some hold that the level playing field is not healthy in terms of business incentives to develop new innovations and to remain competitive. On the other hand, promoters of Net Neutrality hold that the model is the very essence of communication rights and that the end user will ultimately be affected detrimentally if it were to change. In their debate that focuses on this issue, Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo consider issues such as innovation, market composition, and the effect upon consumers, with Wu arguing for and Yoo arguing against Net Neutrality.

Yoo holds that discarding Net Neutrality for a model that involves payment related access would stimulate innovation and increase competition. The monetary incentive, according to Yoo, would create not only an environment of greater competition, but also the resources to fund more and better innovations than the case is currently. His argument focuses on the fact that, while content and applications providers have free access to the current network, there is no incentive to invest in new networks or better functioning applications. Guaranteed access, then, effectively cements the current status quo and discourages innovation and competition.

Wu, on the other hand, refutes this by focusing on the implied claim that major companies and powerful business are those at the forefront of innovation. This counter-argument holds that these companies are precisely those that tend to encourage and maintain an existing status quo. Creating an Internet environment where choices are limited by available monetary resources would in effect have the opposite effect of the one Yoo claims.

At the heart of Wu's argumentation is the opinion that providing paid opportunities for better network capabilities while prohibiting access from those not making payments would create a situation where consumer choice and free market would be highly limited. As such, innovation would be limited only to those with the greatest access to and control of the network (Freepress, 2012). If one accepts that innovative ability is not only limited to large corporations, the results could be devastating. Consumer decisions would be limited to what large network owners allow, while there would be no possibility for others to compete or enter the market.

The current structure of the Internet allows for a high level of competition and innovation. All network users can compete on a level field, succeeding or failing on their own merits, regardless of investing capability. Removing Net Neutrality will change this freedom of innovation of choice to a highly restricted environment that depends upon boardroom decisions for its innovations and perpetuation.

Related to the issue of innovation and competition is the ability of more markets to survive in the competitive environment. According to Yoo's argument, creating a more diversified platform of networks would create more potential for specialization. Where large network companies, for example, offer a variety of services, smaller companies could offer more personalized services for which it could charge a certain market-related fee.

From examples such as at&T, whose network dominates the telecommunications market, it is clear that this would hardly be the case (New York Times, 2010). There is little chance that smaller companies could survive in an environment where basic and innovative services are offered with little hope of competition by smaller entities. Innovation and competition would therefore both be limited in favor of dominance and even monopoly by the largest network owners and those who pay their fees.

According to the New York Times (2010), there was a proposal by Verizon and Google that implied the removal of Net Neutrality by creating paid fast lanes for some users. Content companies would then have to pay for the ability of users to enjoy faster downloads and access to their pages, while unpaid sites would either load much more slowly or be complete inaccessible. Interestingly, Facebook and other Internet content companies opposed the proposal, while telecommunication companies like at&T favored it.

As mentioned, content companies currently have a level playing field, with all investment going towards creating attractive content and features. The only limit is the creative budget. If some of this budget were then to go towards accessibility, the situation would dramatically change. Some companies would completely lose their ability to compete; especially those with lower budgets.

The drive to restrict user access to certain services or to prohibit services that are relatively equal to existing network services is already a reality (New York Times, 2010). One example is Verizon Wireless and its rejection of Naral Pro-Choice America's request for network access to send text messages. Another is the relatively controversial rejection by Apple of Google Voice, an iPhone application that would allow users to make low-cost calls without at&T. The latter, however, has an exclusive arrangement for the iPhone in the United States, which prohibits this type of competition. According to Wu's argument, this type of monopolizing drive would intensify if Network Neutrality were to vanish. Instead of encouraging competition and innovation, it would repress the entry into the market of other companies, even if these were to offer specialized services. The greater power and more resources of large companies would either monopolize such services as well or simply bury them under the weight of their own size.

In the light of such evidence, it is difficult to agree with Yoo, who claims to be "unconvinced" of any detrimental effect for the consumer and innovation when it comes to remove Network Neutrality. At the bottom of this claim is Yoo's idea that different approaches to network capability are simply a manifestation of an attempt to satisfy differentiating market demands. Furthermore, he claims that the rapid changes and additions to the initial Internet services warrant such a step, making Network Neutrality obsolete or at least ineffective when it comes to providing appropriate services. By providing a variety of network services, according to this view, network providers would in fact benefit end users and innovation rather than harming them. Yoo offers the suggestion that time sensitive applications should receive priority when it comes to network capability.

The entire issue of Network Neutrality, however, extends far beyond the effectiveness of time sensitive applications. Instead, removing this capability would create a platform for monopoly by those in power. Large corporations would, by definition, overpower the market to the detriment not only of competitors and their innovative creations, but also of end users, whose choices regarding these products would be severely limited.

The current platform of Network Neutrality offers capabilities that are highly beneficial for the end user (Cyber Telecom, 2011). The greatest benefit is probably freedom of choice. Individuals can use whatever applications they want without differentiation among access or download times. All individuals and resources are open for access and download.

Service providers are currently not allowed to discriminate between applications or end point access. Competitive applications can also not be blocked for the purpose of competitive advantage. Terms and conditions for service levels are also the same for all offering them. Also, there is no need to seek approval for new innovations.

The Internet in its current form offers the ultimate in freedom of choice. It provides all users with an equal footing, whether in the search of information or in providing information, products, and services. The only way in which such freedom can continue is if Network Neutrality persists. It would be tragic if individuals and businesses were restricted on the basis of their monetary resources.

While, on initial reading, Yoo's arguments are intellectually highly capable and… READ MORE

How to Reference "Net Neutrality Network" Reaction Paper in a Bibliography

Related Reaction Papers:

Justifications and Action Plan Net Neutrality Research Paper

Justifications & Action Plan

Net neutrality is the principle that internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the internet. Net… read more

Research Paper 20 pages (5971 words) Sources: 10 Style: APA Topic: Computers / IT / Internet

---

Network Neutrality Term Paper

Network neutrality has become one of the most discussed issues in communications and the Internet today. As one pundit states network neutrality is "...a large, unresolved debate..." (Mark R.) the… read more

Term Paper 6 pages (1889 words) Sources: 10 Style: MLA Topic: Computers / IT / Internet

---

Mental and Physical Health Effects of Internet Use Among Young Adults Term Paper

addictive use of the internet is not necessarily a new phenomenon, however practitioners are unware of the actual negative implications of physical and mental addiction that comes with internet use.… read more

Term Paper 16 pages (4339 words) Sources: 15 Style: APA Topic: Child Development / Youth / Teens

---

Career Orientation of Bank Managers in Pakistan a Private Public Sector Comparison Term Paper

benchmark regarding bank manager careers in Pakistan. Islamic banking is a growing feature of banking in the region, and Pakistan as a nation has expressed interest in being the banker… read more

Term Paper 75 pages (21790 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Economics / Finance / Banking

---

Negotiation Stories: Lessons Learned Professional Writing

Negotiation Stories: Lessons Learned

Negotiation is the framework upon which business and politics are able to function effectively (Tohm, 2001). There are three primary facets of negotiation which exist in… read more

Professional Writing 30 pages (9576 words) Sources: 20 Topic: Business / Corporations / E-commerce

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>