Net Neutrality: An Ethical Analysis

ASSIGNMENT TEMPLETE
Net Neutrality
ADMIN
Student Number
Word Count:1239

Introduction
The internet (net) links billions of devices worldwide using the TCP/IP protocol suite by
interconnecting computer networks. The Net neutrality (internet/ network neutrality) is a
component of the open internet. It is the principle that the government and the internet service
providers should not charge differently or discriminate any data on the web by content, site, user,
platform or modes of communication. According to Belli, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) sees the internet as a fragile ecosystem, which is under threat from
opportunistic broadband providers (In Belli, In De, Cerf, & Pouzin, 2016). In 2010, the FCC
imposed network neutrality regulations on both wireless and wired broadband-access providers.
The agency claims that the design of the internet was such that there would be no “gatekeepers.”
Despite there being disputes, the FCC has moved ahead to vote in new rules that will affect the
regulation of the broadband internet in the U.S. The FCC’s proposal is inadequate because
exercising of unfettered control over people’s use of the internet creates risks to economic and
technological growth (Belli, 2015).
According to Open Internet case report by the European Union (“Open Internet | Digital
Single Market,” n.d.), there are various industries that will be affected by this decision. The
internet services providers will have to bear with the slow speeds since a lot of people will be
accessing the internet. Rich media services will also affect how people will upload games and
upcoming streams. It will act as a barrier to smut free internet that will change social media
through blogs that will result in higher prices and diminished quality of services of web
publishers. Consumers seem to benefit from this decision it would put similar pricing on the
internet (Sørensen, 2015a).

Utilitarianism Theory
Kanellos argues that we have two sides in a dispute concerning net neutrality. Providers
aim at regulating their broadband so that they can utilize it to pursue their interests to favor their
internet service provision. On the other side, there are the proponents of “internet neutrality” who
believe that to foster economic growth and innovation; the government should regulate the
internet. The FCC chair’s proposal says that companies which stream content if they wish, they
should be able to pay internet providers for direct access to customers which will result in
increased streaming speeds (Kanellos, 2015). The proposal goes ahead to protect companies that
cannot or do not want to pay for the direct access to customers which means that internet service
providers (ISPs) will be prohibited from slowing down the streaming speed for those who eat up
more bandwidth and treat those services like any other data. This is not the right solution because
it gives enormous companies with a lot of money advantage over the startup companies, which
cannot be able to afford to pay for direct access to internet users. According to Marsden, the
young firms must rely on the certainty of rules that do not discriminate for them to grow, build
new technologies and create jobs. Also, the consumer will also suffer because these large
companies will be in a position to charge them what they want without worrying about people
moving on to their competitors (Marsden, 2015).
Deontology Theory
Musiani & Löblich believes that there are oppositions as well as proposers of the legal
support for the internet neutrality. The proposers argue that the government should prevent the
ISPs restriction of the content received by the consumers. The opponents on the other side fall
into two categories. The first group believes that legislation is not necessary, as consumer
behavior will prevent abuse. The second group believes that the ISPs should be able to provide