Introduction
The battles around network neutrality continue till now and became a real struggle. The very concept of network neutrality was the base for all telecommunications, and there are two points of view, whether this network neutrality still remains on the web fields, or, as most scholars agree, this principle is left far behind and now different providers implement different conditions to information and site access. The paper is going to research network neutrality and to investigate different opinions on the issue, as well as try to answer the question whether network neutrality is profitable to the society or not.
Main Body
The problem of network neutrality is rather interesting for me, as living in XXI century, Internet is faced every day by me and equal accessibility to all resources of information is crucial. It is significant to know whether equal access to all sites is implemented or providers hide something, referencing to the financial questions. Starting the investigation, it was significant to hear the information personally, and not read it. The technique, which was chosen, is the interview with Perry Brunelli, who gave his own point of view of net neutrality issue. He is not just against such neutrality, but also is not sure that the President will be able to apply such law and to disregard the opinion of majority.
Network neutrality is the principle, according to which the providers of telecommunication services do not give privileges to one content, site, or platform before the other. On the contrary, network neutrality principle makes Internet free for all, when all companies, providers and users have equal access to all information, which may be reached online (Coz par.4). Trying to consider the strength and weaknesses of the discussed issue, I searched for some other secondary sources, where the problem of network neutrality is discussed, to provide my personal opinion about the question. Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said in his speech that the main priority of the Internet is that it is open for all. He claims that the rules of Internet should be developed, according to which the discrimination of users and application should be forbidden and supported by the law (Carey par.2). Julius Genachowski in his speech usually underlines that Internet has succeed only because it was free and implementation of different restrictions will damage the Internet as the free resource of information, as discrimination of different providers will lead to common dissatisfaction (Genachowski par.4).
The main argument, which is given by the opponents, is that in the case when network neutrality will be provided, the consumers will have the opportunity to access ALL information, given on the Web, that contradicts the privacy law (Hart par.5). Considering the Comcast case, it was stated that network neutrality should be forbidden and providers should be aware of information, which is introduced through their traffic. The reason for such conclusion was that for about 10% of clients of their system provided illegal file sharing of huge volume that decelerated the traffic processes in general. The avoidance of the network neutrality and providing of some laws, which could allow providers to see the packages of information (now they are protected by the privacy laws) would help to avoid traffic speed problems (Stair and Reynolds 173).
Having considered all the secondary sources, I still could not provide my personal opinion about the necessity of net neutrality and I turned to Perry Brunelli interview, the director of the Network Service Department in Information Technology. Having conducted a phone interview at 2:30pm on Thursday afternoon (November 5th), the following information was collected, that net neutrality is impossible in modern society, as first of all the interests of the consumers are investigated and, according to Brunelli’s opinion, “the Obama administration understands this issue and will fight for consumer rights” (Brunelli par. 13). Moreover, his strong consideration is that people should decide by themselves what conditions to choose and he, personally, does not want to be “tweaked” (Brunelli par.7) in reference to his traffic, based on the application. Reading Brunelli’s answers, which were sent for me by fax with the links to some useful information, my opinion more and more inclined to the impossibility of network neutrality. Accepting Brunelli’s opinion, I bean to think that network neutrality should not be provided in the Internet service, but at the same time the supporting arguments of those who try to protect net neutrality are also convincing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be mentioned that I still do not have the firm consideration about the issue, but after the close investigation I turn more to the absence of network neutrality in the Internet environment. The investigation, which took place, included primary and secondary sources evaluation with the relevant deductions, but the issue is so contestable, and the conclusion may not be put by me. So, I cannot give the full answer whether I support network neutrality or not, but in fact I do not like the idea of the full access to information, avoiding the personal privacy laws.
Works Cited
Primary Source: Brunelli, Perry. Interview. 2009.
Carey, John. “FCC Stirs Old Debate on ‘Net Neutrality’.” BusinessWeek, 2009. Print.
Coz, Clothilde Le. “Why the Future of Online Speech Depends on Net Neutrality.” Save the Internet, 2009. Web.
Genachowski, Julius. “The Open Internet: Preserving the Freedom to Innovate.” The White House Blog, 2009. Web.
Hart, Kim. “FCC chief outlines net neutrality rules.” Business & Lobbying. 2009. Print.
Stair, Ralph and George W. Reynolds. Fundamentals of Information Systems. London: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.