Net Neutrality Pros And Cons

20 1 1

by I_go_by_K

by I_go_by_K

http://www.itpro.co.uk/strategy/28115/the-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality

Source^^

The pros and cons of net neutrality

Still on the fence about net neutrality? Here's both sides of the argument
Net neutrality can be broadly defined as the concept of an open internet, where no websites or services are prioritised over any other, and nothing legal is blocked. That means users have unfettered access to any legal website they can imagine, and that a transatlantic Skype chat with a friend shouldn't stop your email from loading.

But while there are advantages to the concept of a free and open internet, there are always two sides to every argument. Here's the pros and cons of net neutrality to help you decide which side you sit on.

As long as it's legal, any blog or website or news service is available online under the concept of net neutrality. Otherwise, internet service providers could in theory block access to content they don't want you to see, like a rival video streaming site or another site that competes with their own interests, or even content they deem as unsuitable. Net neutrality lets all the many, diverse people in the world have a voice online, for better or worse.

Promotes innovation and competition

An open internet ensures that larger companies don't have yet another advantage over a tiny startup. It's a level playing field on the internet, where everything is delivered as fast as possible to the end user.

Unfettered access

Google can't pay for faster access to their websites, and a tiny video streaming service should in theory be as speedy and glitch-free as Netflix. Net neutrality squashes the potential for internet fast lanes, where internet service providers can charge content creators for enough bandwidth to deliver their service properly.

It also prevents the possibility of providers charging end users an extra fee to access vital services, like online banking or email, or entertainment platforms like gaming networks (or of the owners of these services from passing their costs onto end users).

Cons
No network innovation

The rise of bandwidth-heavy web services like video streaming and content downloads means internet service providers have less money to spend on upgrading their networks, they argue. If they could charge Google, Microsoft, et al for carrying their resource-intensive services, they could invest in upgrading their networks and extending them further.

Porn and objectionable content thrives

Some opponents of net neutrality lament how easily accessible legal but age-sensitive content like pornography is. While there are plenty of security vendors who allow families to restrict the sites available on a family computer, more children have smartphones and connected devices with which they can get online without adult supervision.

If an internet service provider could block these services at a network-wide level, this would go a long way to solving this issue. This would be the case under the UK's Digital Economy Bill, which, if passed, would force people to verify their identity to access porn sites, and would block those sites from showing 'unconventional' sex acts.

Providers could also crack down on peer-to-peer file-sharing, which is responsible for a lot of illegal downloads, thus preventing piracy.

No free internet access

Advocates for less oversight of internet service providers say that allowing them to charge for access to some content would lead to free access to certain sites. For example, they argue that if internet service providers charged bandwidth-hungry companies like Netflix more for using their infrastructure, they would be able offer access to sites like Wikipedia or Facebook for free - even if you had no internet contract.