This section reflects an argument by supporters of net neutrality concerning the transparency of the internet. They claim that it is mandatory for the Federal Communication Commission FCC to protect the openness of the net. Imposing restriction on internet service providers IPS to keep IPS from either discriminating of favoring against the internet content providers could be done by controlling the bandwidth that allows their content to flow. In this essay, I choose to argue for the legislative action to protect the internet neutrality.
Internet neutrality is the principle that allows the government and internet service providers to handle all data that is on the net equally (Levine 66). This means that they are not supposed to charge differently or discriminate sites, platform, and the users. The same applies to the content, the form of attachment equipment, application, or the communication mode. The purpose of this paper is to reveal the significance of protecting the net neutrality by the legislative action. It entails an argument that supports this measure to ensure that all internet users are not discriminated in any way.
I support the move to protect the internet neutrality because it incorporates public information that is relevant to all sites provided that they are treated in an equal manner. Additionally, if online information is protected, the execution of a service at a given layer would not be interfered by other details except the information that is interpreted at that particular layer. I further concur with the idea of an open net because it entails full resources that make individuals and firms to operate and access information easily.
As a proponent to this argument that protects the internet neutrality, it is evident that this will enhance transparency. As a result, it will support policies, such as open web standards and equal treatment of information for easy communication on the digital platform. If the legislative action protects the internet neutrality, it will serve as a positive move for users to enable them conduct operations without facing interference from the third party (Morgan 117). This implies that there will be no restriction to access essential information because the content will not be filtered.
My arguments for the legislative action to protect net neutrality are that they enable the Internet Service Providers to access the internet without being interrupted. This implies that firms, such as those that provide cables will not be permitted to filter the net content without a proof inform of a court order. Furthermore, if the legislative action is in favor of net neutrality, the common carrier status will grant the Federal Communication Commission FCC authority to enforce regulations to support this system. This would also avoid situations whereby telecommunications companies would control the internet by checking on websites that either load slowly or quickly. This legislative action avoids cases that incorporate companies, which have bad intentions of charging content providers. Moreover, if an action will not be taken to favor the Internet service providers, other firms would take advantage by establishing their own search engines. In return, this blocks or slows access of competitors in the market.
The openness of the internet should be protected because the internet was never designed with authorities to prevent access to new services and content. If the legislation action is not put into place, the principles that are intended to make browsing successful would be undermined. This can take place when the broadband carriers are granted the capability to interrupt with activities of individuals on the digital platform (Wyne 72). I support the legislative action in favor of the net neutrality because of the freedom and digital rights that will benefit users. As a proponent in favor of the net openness, my argument is that this will have a positive outcome. This is by ensuring that the internet remains a transparent and free technology to enhance a democratic form of communication. I further assert that the net neutrality will promote the internet monopolization by diversifying independent and modern sources. This implies that this will support innovative measures on the web content if openness is allowed.
As an advocate for net neutrality, I support the legislative action to be put into place to avoid cases of exploitation from cable companies. This action is vital because it will stop charges that are imposed on websites and avoid situations whereby network owners block competitors’ sites. This will also ensure that such companies fail to reserve bandwidth to execute their own operations while charging other firms. My argument is that if there is no neutrality in accessing the internet, this will serve as a disadvantage, especially to newer firms. The reason is because accepting preferential treatment of internet traffic would result in slow innovation in digital services, which are not proper. In my opinion, without network neutrality, the internet will face a negative transformation. For instance, the net providers will encounter issues with a market that is governed by deal making instead of innovation. This explains the significance of having internet neutrality and the need of the legislative action to protect its transparency.
In this aspect, my argument is that the net neutrality is significant as it places each person on equal terms hence facilitates innovation. In my opinion, I support online neutrality as it preserves the way in which the internet has always been in operation. It supports the quality of websites and services, which determines their success or failure rather than the bad deals that are carried out by the Internet Service Providers ISPs (Levine 204). In addition, elimination of the net neutrality will lead to a situation that would force the internet to operate the same way as cable TVs. This means that if the legislation action fails to intervene, this operation would be interfered by few firms that control the distribution and access of content. As a result, the companies would charge high amounts of internet fees. This will apply to other large firms, such as finance that use secure and speed internet, which is unfair. This is why as a supporter of the net neutrality, I call upon the FCC to intervene in this matter and protect transparency of this service to avoid discrimination.
Analyzing this issue of net neutrality, my argument is that even a large number of great innovators who started small were driven by great ideas. For instance, they ensured that their internet services were under protection that limited the owners to control the networks. Furthermore, they embraced maximum competition in their space that allowed the outside innovators to be part of their network. To continue enjoying such services, the FCC should take a legislative action to ensure that they protect net neutrality.
Levine, Ann. Supporting Net Neutrality. London: University Press, 2010 Print.
Morgan, William. Federal Communication Commission Responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011 Print.
Wyne, Robert. Internet Service Providers. New York: Citadel Press, 2009 Print.