To begin
with i too was blind supporter of Net Neutrality (NN) like most of us. Who wouldn't
want same access for all web content at same prices? Catchy words like Telecom companies, ISPs
want to end Internet freedom, create monopolies grab everyone’s attention. Especially
if we believe in free market and competition. I was influenced by couple
of RWs who not only opposed Net Neutrality but called it Socialism. The term Socialism made me to read other side of Net Neutrality (NN).
Is
Internet a public utility?
With the exception of open source code and public domain
content, every part of the Internet is private property: property owned by
someone. The content of websites is owned by its authors. The specialized
computers (servers) that a Web content provider, such as Google, uses to make
its content available on the Web must be purchased and maintained by Web
Content provider. The computer that a Web surfer uses to access websites such
as Google and to check his email must be purchased and maintained by him and is
therefore his private property Likewise, the cables, computers, wireless
transmitters, and other equipment used by an Internet service provider (ISP) to
connect Web surfers to online content is purchased and maintained by that
provider and is therefore its rightful property. Each of these
parties has the right to use their property in profitable manner, including the
right to deal with the other parties by mutual agreement to mutual benefit. The
Internet is not public property. Telecommunications companies have spent billions
on network infrastructure all over the world. They did so in the hope of
selling communications services to customers willing to pay for them. The
government has no right to regulate their networks.
How
does Internet work?
Anyone who uses the Internet understands on some level: The internet functions by sending small clusters of information called data packets from one computer to other. This is how we get to see various web contents on the Internet. The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) own the wires and cables through which these data packet travels. and charge web surfers for using their service. ISPs own the wires and cables. ISPs do a
statistical analysis of their network to determine what contention ratio is
appropriate for their user base and that’s the ratio between actual bandwidth
and potential maximum demand. that's how they make network Infrastructure. If the ISPs start making dedicated path for every user it will be costly and at the same time all users do not use maximum bandwidth at all times. So if there's a live cricket match and everybody
logs on to see the match over the data transmission lines of their internet
company everyone will get drop frames.(Buffering). This is called Network congestion.In simple words if everyone decides to go to a cricket stadium at the same time there will be traffic jam. ISPs usually use complex
algorithms to reroute connections in order to alleviate possible network
congestion. That's only so much they can do if the carrying capacity of the
network as a whole is exceeded. When the carrying capacity of the network is
exceeded the only solution is expand Network infrastructure to create more
series of tubes that internet runs on or to borrow somebody else's capacity.
This sharing of data is a voluntary arrangement among the ISPs. They can
achieve better performance and they can distribute larger amount of traffic.
Why ISPs want to build fast lanes and Slow Lanes?
ISP providers claim certain Web content providers like You tube etc. are responsible for network congestion on their network, crippling their bandwidth and increasing their rerouting cost. Obviously if you’re going to buy someone else's network they will charge you more than your own. So ISPs are proposing idea of fast lines and slow lanes. Basically it’s these large video streaming sites, large size files that are bandwidth intensive. The Web content providers who use intensive bandwidth will have to pay for fast lanes. Cause the ISPs will have to build more tubes and for that they either have to charge the customers or the Web Content providers. If i were an ISP provider i would not want to go to a user and ask him if he wants fast access to a certain website he has to pay for. Because they would say why I should pay for certain website when i am already getting it at decent speed. People would just leave ISP service and go to others who are charging less. Instead if ISPs ask Web content to pay for additional infrastructure required for streaming HD videos to millions of people then the consumer gets the better experience. This is a standard practice in market. So it’s up to these content providers either to pay additional infrastructure from their profits or charge the end users. Main point is to charge the intensive they may increase rates of certain websites in short run or the long run but that's not something cable companies should have to worry about. This is precisely why Web content providers are supporting Net Neutrality because they will not have to pay more individually. These Web providers who support NN will run for cover if we ask them to give free access to their paid content.
How
will these fast lanes and slow lanes work in real time?
When
an ISPs network receives a data packet it will inspect the id and if the id is
of a content provider who is paying for the fast lane it will deliver that data
through its optimal node path and all other traffic would be diverted to low
priority lanes making the delivery slower but notice if it a webpage which has
small amount of data. But the reality is it may be faster than if fast and slow
lanes are not developed. Because if the fast lanes means all the data intensive
stuffs will be routed away from the network which deal with things like emails,
chats, podcast's, emails. Suppose if high data intensive stuffs and lower data
intensive stuffs are to share same data path everything will slower for lesser
data intensive stuffs. But if the more intensive data stuff and lesser data
intensive stuff travel in different lanes the low priority lane may actually
end up being fast. Simple analogy if an Industrial
corridor is built and heavy vehicles are made to use it traffic might actually
reduce.
So
the ISPs say if they are not allowed to do fast and slow lanes then they have
to charge more for everyone. But if these ISPs are allowed to make fast and
slow lanes then they will charge the Web content providers for expansion of
their infrastructure. The Net Neutrality brigade say allowing the ISPs to block
or throttle the website or restrict the traffic will give them unfair advantage
over other competing services, large content providers who have access to fast
lanes will have advantage over the others. I really doubt an ISP will simply
block a website it will be kind of censorship like market censorship and it
will bring bad name for the ISP. Recently we have seen thousands of Flipkart
users quit Flipkart assuming Airtel has got speed access and others won’t. ISPs
are in business they would not dare to fight with a lynch mob for censoring a
website None the less big companies will have advantages. But it doesn't mean
smaller companies who use less data intensive stuffs will be affected mush.
Side
effects of Net Neutrality
Everyone will have same access speed.
There
should be of ability to prioritize certain kinds of traffic. Different kinds of
communications have different bandwidth requirements. Watching movies over the
web is bandwidth-intensive, but not time-critical. Teleconferences are both
bandwidth intensive and time critical. Some applications like remote surgery
and other time-critical services are simply impossible over the public Internet
with current technology. Users should have
alternatives to choose from. One size doesn't fit all.
If X's house is on fire and Y
needs water to brush his teeth obviously X needs more water than Y. But with NN
even if X is ready to pay extra money he won't get extra water.
Internet will not be economical.
If
ISPs are not allowed to charge certain web content provider it will be forced
to charge end users. What worse are people who don’t use certain data intensive
web contents will be forced to pay for network infrastructure cost and
rerouting cost. Why should anyone pay for the services he or she doesn't even use?
Slower
Internet in long term
With lesser profits ISPs may chose not to reroute or expand their network causing more Network congestion. ISPs will not invest in expanding and upgrading their network. By denying an Internet service provider its right to manage its property, net neutrality throttles its incentive to invest in new bandwidth. If an ISP is forced to turn over a large portion of its bandwidth to a small portion of its customer base, its overall capacity is not being used profitably, and it therefore has much less incentive to increase its capacity by investing in the expansion of its infrastructure. Already ISPs are hit by drop in SMS and call rates,
With lesser profits ISPs may chose not to reroute or expand their network causing more Network congestion. ISPs will not invest in expanding and upgrading their network. By denying an Internet service provider its right to manage its property, net neutrality throttles its incentive to invest in new bandwidth. If an ISP is forced to turn over a large portion of its bandwidth to a small portion of its customer base, its overall capacity is not being used profitably, and it therefore has much less incentive to increase its capacity by investing in the expansion of its infrastructure. Already ISPs are hit by drop in SMS and call rates,
Privacy
Who
will monitor ISPs to ensure they are giving same access same speed to all users.
People won’t trust ISPs monitoring themselves so most likely government that
will monitor Internet through TRAI. The government will need to verify, at a
technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t
be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install
its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic.
Once installed, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that
access in a benign manner?
Do we
really need government's intervention?
Think
of an industry that has major problems. Public schools, Health care,
Electricity, Railways, banking, infrastructure etc. What do all these
industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all little or heavily government
regulation. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred,
innovation has bloomed, Good example for this is 10 years back SMS, call rates
were very high but today its very cheap
The biggest fear I have of NN brigade won’t stop here they will ask for more regulations in future. The main objective of Net Neutrality isn’t to create neutrality, it is to create and bad economic environment for private investors which will subsequently be followed by government invest. Once the government becomes sole provider of the Internet. At that point if ruling government doesn't like rival’s ideology they will ban or slow down their websites. When government gets to choose winners and losers guess who is going to be the loser? People who pay taxes!!
The biggest fear I have of NN brigade won’t stop here they will ask for more regulations in future. The main objective of Net Neutrality isn’t to create neutrality, it is to create and bad economic environment for private investors which will subsequently be followed by government invest. Once the government becomes sole provider of the Internet. At that point if ruling government doesn't like rival’s ideology they will ban or slow down their websites. When government gets to choose winners and losers guess who is going to be the loser? People who pay taxes!!
The agenda
of Net Neutrality brigade is to create bad economic situation and dry private
investment naturally investors will run away because they won’t get proper returns.
At that point someone has to step in and save the day- it will be the government. Let’s face it Private investors are investing lakhs of crores which
means they expect to get pretty good returns on their investment, If they are
taking big risk in investing money. Suppose if investor is investing little
money say 100 Rs loss of 30 Rs won’t affect him but if he is investing lakhs of
crores it will certainly affect him. Right now we are fighting a free market fight against Net
Neutrality. ISPs are answerable to customers;
they are in constant battle with one and other to deliver the new technologies best
services at best rates. All this is generated by competition and that
competition needs lots of investment. The
Free market fight will quickly become free speech fight once NN supporters are having
their ways, which is more government involvement in the internet. If you don’t like one Tata
you can opt for Airtel, if you don’t like Airtel you can opt Reliance. We got
only one government if they are making rules they will also choose content.
Once they get to choose content we are done for good!!
The worse
is government doesn’t need to answer. They will provide what they feel is good
and block what they feel is bad and we can’t do anything.
No
one can estimate the growth of Internet.
Fifteen
years back no one would have expected Internet would grow so big. Internet is
still evolving and the last we can do is stunting its growth by involving the
government. We never know Five to Ten years from now a new satellite technology
may emerge that makes fiber obsolete, and we’ll all be getting wireless Gigabit
downloads from space directly to our smartphones, anywhere in the world,
Unrealistic? Just think what someone would have said in 1994 if you had tried
to explain to them everything you can do today on an iPhone, and at what
price.
My
point is let’s give free market a fair chance to find solution and have zero government
interference.
I’m not a good writer and most of the
above content are written by others. I have compiled their views and added some
of my views.
Resources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhrT3vZc_Vc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhrT3vZc_Vc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4&index=7&list=WL
No comments:
Post a Comment