Net neutrality advocates for more self-independence of an American when choosing their preferred websites to view, the kind of applications they would like to have on their phones and choice of phone services without depending on the Internet Service Providers, Comcast companies, AT&T and Verizon or government interference in such decisions. This liberalizes the institution removing the need for control companies that profit from the lack of such neutrality.
When it comes to such radicle reforms, the world at large depends on the American society and its democratic institutions to set the desired pace of free market policies that serve to safeguard the best possible outcome for data users.
Currently, the American society is divided between factions that want to preserve the free nature of internet and its properties and those that want to retain the current capital structure that exists in the premises. The larger portion of the American population is behind the net neutrality agenda but the government is practicing restrictive measures to prevent implementation of the neutrality. To most Americans this concept would safe guard the general public from the extensive reach of the corporate institutions in exploiting the consumer market (Economides, 2009). The government on the other hand seems to be in cohorts with the corporates in safeguarding their revenue base even if it is at the expense of the common citizen.
Back in the year 2015 the American court system came to the conclusion that for FCC to make net neutrality reforms broad band suppliers are to be made common carriers. FCC implemented this by making ISP common carriers hence surviving court allegations by ISP companies. The FCC leader would later ratify this when he categorized broad band supplier companies to just information service providers. This removes all the legal ground for FCC to comply with net neutrality requirements hence restricting American users.
How this affects the common American goes beyond the daily internet requirements. This is through maintaining a high operation cost for internet users and regulated access to data available in the internet sources. This goes against the founding principles of American institutions that advocate for utmost freedom in expression of economic, social and political freewill in line with the regulations of the land. This goes against basic consumer freedoms and thus is a direct hindrance to democratic principles.
This affects data and information flow in the American society because ISP companies manipulate what is accessible to you to maintain their profit margins and the wellbeing of their company from competitive firms. Lack of neutrality in the institution also implies that ISP companies can practice restrictive measures on your traffic rate in the internet hence making you connections deliberately slow. This is often done by the companies and the American consumer cannot know when such is being exercised on their connection so as to accumulate overall cost.
The immediate implications that arise when these struggles persist in the internet industry is that the internet subscriber rates across the country steadily goes down overtime as people get agitated with lack of control of the content they want to view and the articulated slow connectivity from providers. The internet is a great reservoir of intellectual information and data essential in the daily livelihoods of the modern American society. The general public depends on this platform to stay updated as well as accruing necessary skills vital for development of livelihoods. Such a resourceful platform should be liberalized with the aim of maximizing availability to Americans exposed to different factors. With data neutrality such a digital utopia is lucrative in the overall development of the country’s economy and industry in the long run.
The cooperate interests however coincide with the greater good and when it comes to maximizing their profit margins the institution is willing to make political agreements with the government so as to create injunctions to such court processes that threat their stay in the business. Other repercussion to net neutrality struggles is the resulting security implications. The main concern when retrieving and inputting personal or corporate data over internet sources is the security of private information from cyber criminals. Currently what is available to the market base is the Virtual private network which serves as protection of individual information. The platform achieves this by hiding essential private data from internet service providers who may misappropriate such information. VPNs also come in handy in hiding individual location as well as any form of transactional activity over the internet. With such platforms Americans use their browsers without the insecurity of being monitored and the risk of their security details being traded to third parties. This is however affected by the neutrality agenda and many subscribers are feeling less secured from ISP invasion of private space.
The dependence of VPNs does not come without its own limitations also. The operation basis of such services is articulated by creating a digital tunnel that safeguards your internet mobility. This tunnel may act to slow your connection. The VPNs in partnership with the ISP in the corporate sense and as such to enjoy their services one has to tolerate with the throttling of connectivity by ISPs. The current court repeal on net neutrality could affect American’s freewill to make security choices to protect their content when online.
The guiding motivation in maximizing the number of data users is instilling enough confidence in the institution so as to attract internet consumer base. Net neutrality gives such control to the consumer implying the competitive nature of provider companies will determine the sustainability of the firm in the market. With a wide range of options to choose from the provider companies are placed on a level ground and have to adopt necessary incentives to remain viable. The corporate structure will however strive to maintain their power base as well as regulating capability. When the industry is in contradicting grounds with the consumers loopholes arise breaking customer and provider trust which interprets to unfavorable terms of trade in this case to the disadvantage of the American society.
Users will feel the secondary effects of the net neutrality if not achieved. Such effects can be illustrated by a practical example through the favored internet services by the Americans. Verizon platform may approach applications such as Netflix and yelp and impose unprecedented charges on them to make their information accessible to subscribers in Verizon domain. There will be no other way around it other than incurring these extra charges. What these two platforms do to keep their margins constant is that they carry forward this cost to their users making their services even more costly (Meinrath, 12). The long term implications are that the convenience offered currently by such platforms will be out of the reach of most Americans and hence consolidating the nature of internet which should be much liberalized in the first place. This extends to multiple platforms covering the wide range of free blogs that keep internet life informative as well as different websites that Americans are accustomed to. Many of this will be unable to survive with unprecedented charges imposed on their administrators; this is not the development curve that the Americans or the world at large desires.
The internet is an eccentric platform that offers informative amusement and is a cost effective get away for modern society which affords multiple services conveniently. This is under threat with the move of blocking net neutrality stripping the fun from the platform and the mobility it portends today. With ISP doping out extra charges to grant access to the final customers the trends that have been developing in recent decades face stagnation. Startup companies and competitors of ISP are constrained from normal operation making their reach on consumers a cost implication. The convenience of digital marketing that has been developing granting access to cheaper goods and services over the internet will see additional cost added on such commodities making them more or equally priced as physical retailers.
Restricting net neutrality affects the American consumer more than any other involved party. ISPs assume competition restrictive measures that work to improve quality of service delivered to consumers. The move to counter net neutrality is a move to maintain a monopolistic status quo in the market. Monopolies have are self-preservative and are largely designed to give minimal control to consumers. It is not a secret that Americans loathe ISP companies for their exploitative nature for they eliminate the option of switching providers at will (Hogendorn, 208). Consumers are instigated to the content ISPs want to market extending the nature of exploitation on Americans. Even though America offers a wider range of content accessible to its citizenry than many countries such freedom is not spread out to every American and is reserved for specific users. Broadband charges are also higher in America than in most developed countries yet the internet speeds are greatly regulated to lower speeds which is an unfair precedence to the American consumers. Net neutrality is a desired outcome for America the leading developer of modern concepts, ideology and technology. The freedom to choose from different providers would only stimulate the market leading to quality improvement of internet sources and content for the whole international system.
Works Cited
Economides, Nicholas. “Net neutrality, non-discrimination and digital distribution of content through the internet.” ISJLP 4 (2008): 209.
Hogendorn, Christiaan. “Broadband Internet: net neutrality versus open access.” International Economics and Economic Policy 4.2 (2007): 185-208.
Lee, Robin S., and Tim Wu. “Subsidizing creativity through network design: Zero-pricing and net neutrality.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 23.3 (2009): 61-76.
Litan, Robert E., and Hal J. Singer. “Unintended consequences of net neutrality regulation.” J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 5 (2006): 533.
Meinrath, Sascha, and Victor Pickard. “Transcending net neutrality: Ten steps toward an open Internet.” Education Week Commentary 12.6 (2008): 1-12.
Nunziato, Dawn C. Virtual freedom: Net neutrality and free speech in the Internet age. Stanford University Press, 2009.
Wallsten, Scott, and Stephanie Hausladen. “Net neutrality, unbundling, and their effects on international investment in next-generation networks.” Review of Network Economics 8.1 (2009).
