Cyberlaw Paper on Network Neutrality

CYBERLAW PAPER ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Cyberlaw Paper on Network Neutrality
The concept of "network neutrality" has been one of the primary debates in most governments worldwide. The topic is controversial as it varies depending on one's perspective. The neutrality rule prevents the internet service providers from taking specific measures, such as blocking users from accessing certain websites or introducing tariffs to users. Some providers take these measures to obtain resources to fund their systems and sustain their operations. The network neutrality guidelines bars these service providers from implementing these measures. Instead, the neutrality rules advocate for a free system in which users are able to access websites at whichever time they need it.
Consequently, preventing these websites from conducting such processes denies them the support needed to sustain themselves. Therefore, when the issue in light of the service providers is addressed, the neutrality rule is terrible. However, considering the user's perspective, a law should prevent users from discriminating against certain websites. The measure also allows customers to explore their innovativeness and access complete information in their areas of interest. Thus, users perceive this rule as a plausible idea. A critical review of the pros and cons that scholars provide regarding this rule shows that it is an excellent idea that policymakers should only refine to benefit both the service providers and the users despite the protests. Because of the topic's broad nature, with each country having different reasons for its implementation, the decision will ultimately depend on the policy's goals. 
Governments in developed countries, including the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, have been mulling over the need to institute a legislative or regulatory action that will prevent internet service providers from interfering with their networks. The issue is not limited to developed nations but also other countries around the world. In 2016, India weighed in on the subject by allotting the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations. The Indian government favored the principle of internet neutrality, which suggests users, websites, and other parties should not be discriminative against certain content. Instead, they should treat all content equally and only judge it based on moral ethics. Consequently, Indian users treat all content aired on their websites equally. The service providers also endeavor to produce good quality content that morally benefits people. The above measures support the idea that implementing the net neutrality principle will not have a significant impact on societal operations as the opponents of the principle tend to presume.[Van Schewick, Barbara. "Network neutrality and quality of service: What a nondiscrimination rule should look like." Stanford Law Review (2015): 1-166.] [Cheruvalath, Reena. "Internet neutrality: a battle between law and ethics." International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 31, no. 1 (2018): 145-153.]
India's adoption of the rule inspires the need to assess the benefits and disadvantages of this guideline. Assessment of the ideas that the proponents and the opponents present to support their respective positions help determine the appropriate recommendation on whether the approach should be adopted or discarded. Proponents of network neutrality have argued that the concept promotes innovation in developing new applications. Kocsis and Weda posit that network neutrality promotes innovation by small content providers. With the increasing population, there will be a growing demand for internet services. Allowing the service providers to explore all avenues relevant to generating resources and expanding their usefulness will ultimately positively affect society. Allowing these service providers to explore the various routes they can to source more funds to improve the quality of their services is also vital to ensuring that all people have equitable access to the network services. Some of the examples of innovations that have been founded based on the concept of neutrality include the World Wide Web, eBay, Skype, and Yahoo. Therefore, people should be allowed to use the networks without restrictions as it will make their minds explore more modern ideas and put them into action. [Kocsis, Victoria & Weda Jarst. Innovation – enhancing effects of network neutrality, 2013. /publication/260309970_The_innovation-enhancing_effects_of_network_neutrality]
Allowing such a level of innovation also provides countries with opportunities to generate income. Without internet neutrality, individuals such as Mark Zuckerberg would not have established revolutionary platforms that connect people worldwide, feed him and his family, pay for basic needs, and serve as income for the government. In the United States, the Obama administration fiercely defended the guideline to encourage more people, especially the youth, to explore more opportunities available on the web. As Sarah Berger notes, a repeal of the net neutrality rules can significantly affect many people who make their livelihood online. National Small Business Associations and e-commerce entrepreneurs solely rely on the internet to get their income. Unfiltered access to information allows these members to share their ideas with each other and also provide an opportunity for other information seekers to grow.[Berger, Sarah. “Here's How People Who Depend on the Internet for Their Income Are Dealing with the Net Neutrality Repeal.” CNBC. CNBC, December 26, 2017. /2017/12/26/how-the-net-neutrality-repeal-could-affect-online-business-owners.html.]
Proponents of the rule also argue that it protects the ability of users to choose how to use their network without being inconvenienced by the service providers on which services to access and which ones they cannot. Consumers can access all the content they desire equally without any restrictions. Curtailing this freedom is similar to imposing social space restrictions on the people because the world is turning to these digital platforms for information sharing. An individual's tendency to access the wrong sites, such as platforms promoting pornographic material, has to do with their upbringing, rather than imposing strict rules on how they interact with others. A person with morally bent behavior will access dirty content with or without the restrictions. Therefore, barring the content based on controlling societal morals is not sufficient. Instead, allowing free access to several websites will enable people to compete equally on the digital platform. Thus, unlike in specific eras, where there are strict rules on what to access and what is not viable, the modern era entails allowing the child to access any content and use the information to make better decisions. [Reed, Eric. "What Is Net Neutrality and Why Is It Important?" TheStreet. TheStreet, December 27, 2018. /technology/what-is-net-neutrality-14816850. ]
The proponents also argue that adopting the internet neutrality principle promotes the democratic discourse that facilitates the political organization and allows people to take action and transform society to become better. According to DSA, net neutrality is an essential component of social democracy. Without this level of neutrality, businesses will be able to control the content and information delivery to millions of people worldwide. For example, in 2007, Verizon cut the subscriber access to a text-messaging program from the pro-choice nonprofit NARAL. In its statement, the company management noted that the organization would not support communications from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." The decision meant that the company’s subscribers could not get an opportunity to read unfiltered messages and judge issues based on unbiased information. Restricting the access was comparable to controlling people’s thinking, which is similar to dictatorship. Without net neutrality, such incidents would be expected as service providers seek to control what type of information to deliver to their members. Governments would ban certain broadcasters for displaying content that did not favor it.  [Young Democratic Socialists of America. "Net Neutrality Is Essential to Online Democracy." Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), January 20, 2017. /statements/net_neutrality_is_essential_to_online_democracy/. ]
In the wake of the 2017 removal of the net neutrality rules, Jessica Rosenworcel argued that eliminating these guidelines would give ISPs extraordinary power and censor online content at their discretion. In a 2014 court ruling that featured Verizon v. FCC, the court noted that the power of ISPs to censor content was not a theoretical concept but a practical one. Before implementing net neutrality, there were several cases of content censorship, which included instances of separate broadband ISPs who blocked access to voice over IP applications. The incident triggered outrage from some public members when some of the ISPs stopped some online payment services. Such cases can greatly inconvenience the users, who honor their part by paying for the ISP services. [Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, cadc.uscorts.gov, Jan. 14, 2014s]
Net neutrality rules help promote justice for all living organisms. Any living thing is entitled to justice. In this ...