Critical Review of Barbara von Schewick 's part of Point Counterpoint: Network Neutrality Nuances
Net neutrality is a problematic subject that has been around now for a number of years, and is now becoming a widely known and heavily debated topic. The basic definition of net neutrality is that any major ISP or the government cannot provide a bias on, or modify data packets coming from online servers. In the article “Point/Counterpoint Network Neutrality Nuances” partially written by Barbara von Schewick, various points on net neutrality are presented, discussed and argued in detail. The basis of Schewick and her arguments were that law states very little on net neutrality and ISPs have virtual free reign on all of the information that passes through them, but that does not mean that they should. Throughout her points, she maintains the idea that even basic net neutrality rules will help to protect the user from the ISP and all the power they have. While even the most basic of laws may help protect the user, no number of laws, unless those laws become absolute power, will fully protect the user. Absolute laws are something that cause problems and ethics debates, so they will never come into play, and there for the user is always at risk of tampering from the ISP. Companies acting in their own interests are a very common practice now, and it is a practice that any company trying to be profitable. …show more content…
ISPs are no exemption to this. If the option exists for an ISP to limit a resource to make distribution easier on their end, or more cost effective, they will do that. As stated by Schewick in her article, “Network providers may also be motivated to interfere with applications to manage bandwidth … if the use of the network increases, the network providers costs increase as well, but due to flat rate pricing, its revenues stay the same … Comcast[s] blocking of BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer file-sharing is an example of this.” (Schewick, 32) This approach makes sense for the ISP, but it does not help the user and furthermore invalidates the idea of net neutrality. If an ISP is to block any sort of information accessible online, they invalidate the rules of net neutrality, as well it can inconvenience the user. Peer-to-peer file transfer is a commonly used means of transferring illegal/copyrighted material in large quantities which an ISP may have a problem with, however it takes away a means of communication for internet users. As stated by Scott Jordan, “Some ISPs also claim that net neutrality impinges on the ISP’s ability to perform network management tasks, including traffic shaping for p2p traffic” (Jordan, 5:13)ISPs do not like it when something exists that is out of their control, like a peer-to-peer network, as the ISP only exists there to transfer data from point a, to point b, in a like manner as a USB stick. This statement adds greatly to the points proposed by Schewick, as to why an ISP may choose to invalidate the rules of net neutrality, and allows for additional interpretations as to the motivations behind ISPs decisions to block peer-to-peer file-transfer. The idea of bandwidth conservation, where the number of data packets available from an ISP is constricted at a given time, makes sense for the host and the ISP, but limits what is available to use for the consumer. This act enables the host to reduce costs on their
Net neutrality is a problematic subject that has been around now for a number of years, and is now becoming a widely known and heavily debated topic. The basic definition of net neutrality is that any major ISP or the government cannot provide a bias on, or modify data packets coming from online servers. In the article “Point/Counterpoint Network Neutrality Nuances” partially written by Barbara von Schewick, various points on net neutrality are presented, discussed and argued in detail. The basis of Schewick and her arguments were that law states very little on net neutrality and ISPs have virtual free reign on all of the information that passes through them, but that does not mean that they should. Throughout her points, she maintains the idea that even basic net neutrality rules will help to protect the user from the ISP and all the power they have. While even the most basic of laws may help protect the user, no number of laws, unless those laws become absolute power, will fully protect the user. Absolute laws are something that cause problems and ethics debates, so they will never come into play, and there for the user is always at risk of tampering from the ISP. Companies acting in their own interests are a very common practice now, and it is a practice that any company trying to be profitable. …show more content…
ISPs are no exemption to this. If the option exists for an ISP to limit a resource to make distribution easier on their end, or more cost effective, they will do that. As stated by Schewick in her article, “Network providers may also be motivated to interfere with applications to manage bandwidth … if the use of the network increases, the network providers costs increase as well, but due to flat rate pricing, its revenues stay the same … Comcast[s] blocking of BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer file-sharing is an example of this.” (Schewick, 32) This approach makes sense for the ISP, but it does not help the user and furthermore invalidates the idea of net neutrality. If an ISP is to block any sort of information accessible online, they invalidate the rules of net neutrality, as well it can inconvenience the user. Peer-to-peer file transfer is a commonly used means of transferring illegal/copyrighted material in large quantities which an ISP may have a problem with, however it takes away a means of communication for internet users. As stated by Scott Jordan, “Some ISPs also claim that net neutrality impinges on the ISP’s ability to perform network management tasks, including traffic shaping for p2p traffic” (Jordan, 5:13)ISPs do not like it when something exists that is out of their control, like a peer-to-peer network, as the ISP only exists there to transfer data from point a, to point b, in a like manner as a USB stick. This statement adds greatly to the points proposed by Schewick, as to why an ISP may choose to invalidate the rules of net neutrality, and allows for additional interpretations as to the motivations behind ISPs decisions to block peer-to-peer file-transfer. The idea of bandwidth conservation, where the number of data packets available from an ISP is constricted at a given time, makes sense for the host and the ISP, but limits what is available to use for the consumer. This act enables the host to reduce costs on their