As the times go by, each year new inventions and new innovative technology is brought into our world. From new devices, new applications to new information and services. With all these becoming available we are becoming increasingly dependent on the internet. With globalization tearing down barriers and bring the world to one global village, many business in order to conform to the shift are now running as e-business, even this has opened up a whole lot of possibilities now people can be business owners from their own homes. So net neutrality is something that is worth the talk it is generating to day. Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic. The issues that net neutrality is seeking to address is the artificial scarcity that ISPs are trying to create, by using their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly those of competitors.
Net neutrality advocates for all information flowing on the internet to be treated fairly. Today with the way the internet has evolved, more people are streaming data-rich video and playing online games. This has also introduced the problem of congestion of the internet. So should ISPs take advantage of that and provide multi-tiered access to heavy users? With all the hype about net neutrality and the argument of both sides we usually often time skew from the fundamental issue. The Open Internet Coalition argues that “Too often, the discussion of why we need to protect the open Internet degenerates into a stale debate about regulation versus the free market. In fact, it’s impossible for innovation to continue apace without some basic rules of the road to protect that innovation. The open Internet was the principle leading the development of the Internet as the first open global communications network. And it helped drive the development of a host of Internet applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Skype. There would have been no motivation for the developers of these applications to have expended time, effort, and in some cases, their own financial security, in pursuit of their vision if they weren’t guaranteed their inventions would have been able to work over any Internet connection."
On this topic I personally believe, that with the way the internet is now so much integrated into our everyday lives, its importance alone has made it some think akin to water. If Water is not regulated in the terms of how much we drink and who can drink better water, I think that the internet should be treated the same way. Yes we pay for the delivery of the service but not for tiers of service.
As for search neutrality, which is what some people are pushing for to be included in the new rules of net neutrality, the issue being addressed is the right to have all available information on a search term made available to you in order of relevance and not in order of who can afford it. Search Neutrality can be defined as the principle that search engines should be open and transparent about their editorial policies, or, better still, should have no editorial policies other than that their results are comprehensive, impartial, and based solely on relevance. Search engines are among the most innovative services in the global economy. They provide extraordinary efficiencies for advertisers and consumers by targeting messages to viewers who are most likely to want to receive them. For things to be easier and faster some pertinent information is now made available on the internet.
So many types of information are available on the web these days, and some of them can have life changing effects in the right hands. Internet sites have much riding on search engine results: as Nissenbaum & Introna memorably put it, “to exist [online] is to be indexed by a search engine.” While users can locate relevant information on the Net in other ways, search engines now constitute the dominant platform through which content producers and audiences can reach each other. Just as dominant search engines fear an unfairly tiered online world, they should be required to provide access to their archives and indices in a non-discriminatory manner. If dominant search engines want telecommunications and cable carriers to disclose their traffic management tactics, they should submit to regulation that bans stealth marketing and reliably verifies the absence of the practice. For fair competition to be available online it demands common commercial ethics to be applied for both dominant search engines and dominant ISPs.
I personally believe, that with the amount of pertinent information and businesses on the internet which we use in our everyday lives, information should not be hoarded or displaced, to promote increase in revenue.
Looking at the ethics associated with these issues, there are to point of views that can be looked into. The deontologist approach is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Deontologists look at rules and duties. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. For a deontologist ‘the end does not justify the means’, it is the original intent or motive that is the underlying factor under ethical scrutiny. Under this approach net neutrality and search neutrality is ethically right. The main motive behind it is to make things equal and accessible to all. The utilitarian position is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequential-ism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Under this view neutrality on the internet is not ethically wrong, as long as the snowball effect of it brings about a positive change.
With all these facts laid out on the table, I personally think that the internet should be regulated by a body or committee. If it is regulated thus, internet usage and things available on the web will be available to everyone fairly.
Works cited
(n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from The Free Online Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deontologist
Pasquale, F. (2008, July 15). Internet Nondiscrimination Principles for Competition Policy Online. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Judiciary House: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Pasquale080715.pdf
Schonfeld, E. (2008, August 31). The Net Neutrality Debate All In One Page. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-all-on-one-page/
Search Neutrality. (2009, October 11). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Search Neutality.org: http://www.searchneutrality.org/
Wikipedia. (2008, August 18). Network neutrality in Canada. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_Canada
No comments:
Post a Comment