Before reading the essay, I would suggest watching interview of Mark Cuban, a billionaire and owner of Dallas Maverick, by Glenn Beck. He explains net neutrality very very well and help me to wrote this essay. This is a practice of my writing. Not original from myself.
Net neutrality, by literal
definition, is the internet guiding principle that ensures the right of free and
open communication online. According to Wikipedia, more specific
definition concerning the subject is a precept that each datum on the internet
should be perceived equal and indiscriminate by all means, and thus is the idea
that the internet provider and governments have to regard and uphold. Proponents
of net neutrality are in the process to procure a bill of legislation in the
United States so that they can “secure” the right of freedom on the virtual
network. Even though the idea to legislate net neutrality is well intended, little
is known to perceive the consequence of legislation of the bill. Possible
consequences can be argued in two perspectives: technology and libertarianism.
From the perspective of technology,
this can be grounded from the nature of data. Equally and neutrally treating the
flow of each bit of datum on the internet, which advocators of net neutrality have
argued, is an oxymoron. Today, the data that is received by the terminal end
users can be classified into several type of data, such as pixel data, text
data or high definition data. For example, user requests data of high
definition TV/Video that will occupy six megabits more times of a bandwidth
than any other pixel data during transmission. One way to ensure a smooth flow
of circulated data on the internet is prioritization of data transmission. The
ultimate decision to prioritizing data receiving is the internet users.
Therefore, if internet neutrality sets in, then one very possible scenario
would result in fracturing every bit of data from various different sources.
Disregarding the needs of the demander from the user end, one effect of
fracturing everything on the internet is buffering, which is a common phenomenon
of data transmitting during early development of internet. From this very perspective,
implementation of net neutrality is very impractical. Furthermore, net
neutrality may even cause a backward progress on internet technology.
The claims of net
neutrality about indiscriminate treatment of data contradict the nature of data
flow mechanism, and furthermore drag the process of internet technology
development. The Free Press, which is a major lobby of net neutrality,
claims without it internet service providers “could crave the internet into
fast and slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it
disagreed with…This would destroy the open internet” (save) that seems
problematic as well.
From the perspective of
free speech, the internet is a virtually indefinite space that is already free
and open; therefore, imposing regulation on the internet seems unnecessary, and
even violates the principle of libertarianism. Proponent claims that net
neutrality preserves and protects free speech, but on the contrary it might cause
a halt of freedom of speech. Since imposing regulation on open space is already
an act of anti-neutrality, it could foster bias regulations toward any party
that is subject to suspicious discriminating online activity. After all,
imposing regulation equates involvement of government authority which is highly
vulnerable under influence of bureaucracy. As a result, favoritism from the
authority could jeopardize and stifle a truly free internet. This aspect could
not be found from the party of net neutrality proponent.
As good as net neutrality might sound, this is inevitably dissonant
with the idea of guarantee of liberty on the internet. Preventing favoritism by
implementation of regulation on the internet is opening another avenue of
conflicts that is against the mechanism of internet technology and principle of
liberty. Quite a few arguments about supporting net neutrality can be reasoned
because of monopoly of cable industry, which provides the hardware access of the
internet. With the evolving development of high tech industry, what cable
companies are controlling could be solved by Darwinism of free marketing and
technology. Consequently, net neutrality is a redundant act that might cause
more harm than benefit.
