Net neutrality advocates for more self-independence of Americans 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 radical reforms, the world at large depends on 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, American society is divided between factions that want to preserve the free nature of the Internet and its properties and those that want to retain the current capital structure that exists on the premises. The larger portion of the American population is behind the net neutrality agenda, but the government is practicing restrictive measures to prevent the implementation of neutrality. To most Americans, this concept would safeguard the general public from the extensive reach of corporate institutions in exploiting the consumer market (Economides, 2009). The government, on the other hand, seems to be in cohorts with the corporations in safeguarding their revenue base, even if it is at the expense of the common citizen.
Back in 2015, the American court system came to the conclusion that for the FCC to make net neutrality reforms, broadband suppliers are to be made common carriers. FCC implemented this by making ISP’s common carriers, hence surviving court allegations by ISP companies. The FCC leader later ratified this by categorizing broadband supplier companies as just information service providers. This removes all the legal ground for the 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 done by maintaining a high operation cost for Internet users and regulating access to data available from Internet sources. This goes against the founding principles of American institutions that advocate for utmost freedom in the expression of economic, social, and political free will 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 American society because ISP companies manipulate what is accessible to you to maintain their profit margins and the well-being of their company from competitive firms. Lack of neutrality in the institution also implies that ISP companies can practice restrictive measures on your internet traffic rate, hence making your connections deliberately slow. This is often done by companies, and the American consumer cannot know when such is being exercised in their connection so as to accumulate overall cost.
The immediate implications that arise when these struggles persist in the internet industry are that the internet subscriber rates across the country steadily go down over time as people get agitated with a 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 to the daily livelihoods of modern American society. The general public depends on this platform to stay updated as well as acquire the necessary skills vital for the 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 will be lucrative in the long run for the overall development of the country’s economy and industry.
The corporate 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 threaten their stay in the business. Another repercussion of 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 cybercriminals. Currently, what is available to the market base is the virtual private network, which serves to protect 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 locations 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 secure from ISP invasion of private space.
The dependence on VPNs does not come without its own limitations. 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 are in partnership with the ISP in the corporate sense, and as such, to enjoy their services, one has to tolerate the throttling of connectivity by ISPs. The current court repeal of net neutrality could affect Americans’ free will 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 an 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 its power base as well as regulating capability. When the industry is on contradicting grounds with the consumers, loopholes arise, breaking customer and provider trust, which interprets unfavorable terms of trade, in this case, to the disadvantage of the American society.
Users will feel the secondary effects of net neutrality if it is not achieved. Such effects can be illustrated by a practical example of the internet services favored by Americans. Verizon platforms may approach applications such as Netflix and Yelp and impose unprecedented charges on them to make their information accessible to subscribers in the 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, hence consolidating the nature of the internet, which should be liberalized in the first place. This extends to multiple platforms covering the wide range of free blogs that keep internet life informative and different websites that Americans are accustomed to. Many of these 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 getaway 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 ISPs 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 ISPs are constrained from normal operation, making their reach to 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 to 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 the 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 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, as 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 internet speeds are greatly regulated to lower speeds, which is unfair to 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 the improvement of quality 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).
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
