A Brief Understanding Of Concepts And Accepts Of Net Neutrality
Post on 11,November 2015   5:00 AM
By - PolyEyes Staff
views 1125
Bookmark and Share

Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, formalized a partnership with Reliance Communications that enabled reliance to provide access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data accessing to the ultimate user.

The platform, originally known as “Internet. org.” has now been rebranded as “Fresh Basics” However its fundamental ethos remains unchanged.

What it does: It allows reliance subscriber to serf completely free of cost a bouquet of website covered within the schemes, which includes facebook.com.

How is it being viewed: Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, views the initiative as a philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to being access to the interest to those people who find the cost of using generally available mobile data prohibitive. 

But, there are many critics who are argue that Free basics violets what has come to be known as the principle of network (or Net) neutrality.

What is Net neutrality: Net neutrality ia an interpretive concept. The term was coined by Tim Wu – an American lawyer and presently a professor at the Colombia University. He views the notion of net neutrality as signifying an internet that does not favour anyone application over another. 

In other words, the idea is to ensure that internet service providers do not determinate content by either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by XYZ any technical specification.

How it is managed in India: There is no laws enforcing net neutrality in India. Although TRAI guidelines for the unified access service licence promote net neutrality, it does not enforce it. The information technology Act 2000 also does not prohibited companies from throttling their services in accordance with their business interests.

TRAI’s recent draft consultation paper: Recently, the telecom authority of India (TRAI) released a draft consultation paper seeking the public’s views on whether the internet needed regulation. Much of attention was focused on the supposedly pernicious impact of applications such as Whatsapp and Viber, and very less on Net neutrality. 

TRAI says, “In a multi-ethnic society there is a vital need to ensure that the social equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes”.

The basic question raised by the above view are:

Should at least some internet applications be amenable to a greater regulations?

Should they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data charges that the consumers play directly for the use of mobile interest?

What if government answers these questions in affinitive?

If government answer these questionaries’ in affinitive then the consequences could be drastic. It will lead to a classification of Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of these   whome the government views as harmful to society in some manner or other, within its regulatory net.

Through such a move, the state, country to helping establish principles of net neutrality as a rule of law, would be actively promoting an unequal internet.

Why is it necessary to have a specific law mandating net neutrality: In the absence of a specific law mandating a net neutral internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to discriminate between different applications.

Though the companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are certainly proceeding towards such an exercise.

Also alarming is that mobile internet service providers could, in the future, plausibly also control the speed at which different applications are delivered to consumers. This kind of discrimination tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online world. 

Airtel Zero Case: In April, Airtel announces Airtel Zero, an initiative that could allow applicants to purchase data from Airtel in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.

Airtel Zero was widely perceived as a violation of net neutrality which could potentially stifle innovation and start up growth. There was also an allegation that it effectively tilts the balance in favour of the big players. 

By paying to be on Airtel Zero, companies could make sure that their users get free access to service, while smaller player are at a disadvantages. However, Airtel has said that zero rating does not violate net neutrality as it lowers the cost of access and it is “non-discriminatory”.

To prevent such things, it appears necessary to have a specific mandating a neutral interest. 

Views of telecom companies: Telecom companies that wish to discrimination between applications argue that in the absence of an internet that has completely permeated all strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. 

They argue that initiatives later Internet.Org and Airtel Zero bring, at least, some portion of the internet to people who otherwise have no means to access the web. 

This gives rise to a clash of values between access to the internet (in a limited form) and the maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal. This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous process. 

What Net Neutrality proponents say: Net Neutrality proponents are not resistance to the idea of a greater penetration of the internet. But, their apprehensions lie in companies resorting to what they believe in an unethical means to achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end.

 According to them, negative Net Neutrality, is a bid to purportedly achieve greater access to the internet in the immediate future could prove profoundly injurious in the long run. 

Conclusion: It is therefore, absolutely necessary that any debate that on the issue ought to include the tension between the two apparent conflicting values – the importance of maintaining a neutral internet and the need to ensure a greater access to the web across the country. Facebook’s CEO Zuckerberg argues that these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other but can- and must- coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level. 


Back
Comments ( 0 )
Add a comment
Your name: *
E-mail:
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Title:


Related Articles

Prelims Online Test Series
UPSC 2018 Prelims Test Series Registration Link

UPSC REGISTRATION
JPSC 2017-18 PRELIMS Test Series

REGISTRATION
Most Recent Comments
I’m really enjoying the theme/design of your website.
by PhillipNit

I think cdpo requirenment 2017 will be uploades 

Notification this mont.

 

by ASHISH KUMAR

Sir/Mam,

Can you please provide me the syllabus for bpsc mains gs paper syllabus. I am not getting it. 

Regards

by Nupur

sir,your prediction about cut off for general(85-95) is on the basis of 9000 results or more than that.further there is 35% horizontal reservation to women.please clarify

by Pushkar Verma
Surprisingly individual friendly site. Great info available on couple of gos to.
by Binary Option Trading Systems

sir please do reply on the above comment.also tell about the expected date for main exam

by Pushkar Verma

Sir ,

Due to�previous records of jpsc ....can u tell there were any possibilities that jpsc conduct 

7th jpsc as on 12 nov 2017....can  we prepare for it

by Ridhima

Yes gear up , early starters alwaz has edge.

by Help Desk PolyEyes

Proud to be a Bihari

by S K Rai
Get RSS Feeds
  • All Stories
  • Recently Published Stories
  • Most Viewed Stories
  • Just In Photos
  • Most Viewed Photos