Should Distribute Network Traffic Equally †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Should Distribute Network Traffic Equally? Answer: Introduction Open internet is also referred to as Net neutrality, which is a principle that says Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should distribute their network traffic equally without blocking the content, applications and services. The common EU rules on net neutrality applies and ensures that same services are applied across Europe without blocking, throttling and discrimination of internet traffic and is guided by three exceptions. Compliance with legal obligations Network integrity Managing the congestion in exceptional situations National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) are authorized to access traffic management, commercial practices and agreements. They have the power to set quality standards to ensure good quality open internet access to end-users. In 2016, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) in coordination with Commission issued guidelines to help NRAs in assessing inter alia agreements and commercial practices to reach to a consistent decision and actions. NRAs prepare annual country reports and submit them to the Commission and BEREC to help them implement net neutrality rules (Granados, 2017) Open Internet: The Argument Various reasons and arguments exists among people dealing with the internet as the stakeholders involve of government, the service providers, the telecommunication companies, the end users, etc. All have their own reasons to prove the favourability and non-favourability for open internet. Stating below are few of those arguments to consider the ethical side of net neutrality. The net neutrality states that no signal from the traffic on the internet should be prioritized over the other. People on the other side claim that open internet obstructs the main internet market infrastructure. A big organization with more money tend to block content of startups or new upcoming organizations to promote their own content. The supporters of open internet are worried about how much authority the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) should have, and the end users are concerned that the government is interfering the free internet market (Gross, 2014). There are multiple ethical issues that followed up because of these arguments. Before we apply the ethical theories to the open internet, lets pen down the possible options: A complete execution of net neutrality without prioritization of signals for any purpose or to any destination. A limited execution of net neutrality to have ISPs decide the exceptions like blocking of particular signals applications. A complete free market without open internet to have ISPs as sole decision makers to form their rules, and the end users decide which ISP they want to avail the services from. Utilitarianism applied to Net Neutrality Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which says that the outcome of any action are the sole standards of right or wrong. The best action for anything is the one which maximizes the value of anything. Various opinions flows through the multiple discussions and ethical theories are applied to know the best possible solution or in other words to come to a decision which maximizes the final outcome. Considering the business ethics perspective for both the sides, they both are considering their decisions to be right and will benefit maximum people (Michel Weidman, 2015). Using the Utilitarian theory suggests strengthening the net neutrality will lead to the goal of open internet and their rules will benefit maximum people. The telecommunication companies would experience a decline in utility as open internet would have less innovation and no freedom of speech. The utility of this on ISPs would depend on the organization size. The end users will have equal access to everything on the internet and hence will increase its utility for them. Considering the other side with no net neutrality, the telecom companies will keep imposing charges to increase their own profits, big companies with more money will dominate the smaller ones by paying more for faster internet, the FCC will have no rules to regulate the internet flow and the end users will keep getting limited access to various sites (Chung Xing, 2011). Doing a total weightage to both the sides and calculating the final utility we can say that maximum people will benefit with net neutrality and from a Utilitarian perspective it seems to be ethical. Deontology applied to Net Neutrality The deontological ethical theory the moral quality of acts cite on the principals of maxims and Categorical Imperative Test. The acts failing the tests are considered morally wrong. Each individual has the right to give weightage to their own likes and dislikes. These Maxims are the aims of an individual (whether right or wrong). The act can be right if the maxim which the individual is aiming can become a universal law. So the Maxim for people in favor of net neutrality would mean no discrimination and for those opposing it would mean to discriminate. On the basis of the categorical imperative approach in deontology theory, an individuals will or practical reasons are an action of logical consistency. If the individual will can have everyone agree to his particular maxim, then that action is right. The service providers should not have all the authority to interfere the internet permits. As discrimination is morally wrong, hence deontology would favor net neutrality and have equal right with everyone to use the internet and various applications (Given, 2007). To make an ethically and morally right decision, the practical and logical approach seems to be the best for net neutrality. Virtue theory applied to Net Neutrality Virtue theory emphasizes on the moral character as compared to the ethical duties and regulations. It believes in Eudemonism, which means that goals of having a good life can be achieved by practicing virtue in day-to-day life (Geddes, 2016). Thistheory believes that open internet would increase innovation of the signals and networks which would be followed by an increase in the value of internet access to the final internet users and they would be willing to spend more for this value. Ultimately, this would create a virtuous circle. The main conclusion of this theory depends on having a more flexible regulatory approach (Downes, 2017). Contract Theory applied to Net Neutrality This theory is a study of agreements, which are formed between two parties, which may be two individuals or business organizations, to form specific rules agreed by both. This theory believes that getting into a contract will lead to moral living by individuals. Considering the contract theory, there exists an agreement between the end users and the service providers for the data charges that user agrees to pay to receive data services. There also exists an agreement between different service providers on specific terms. Hence, in case of violation of the agreement from the service providers side, the ISPs themselves are responsible it, and have to resolve it. From the mutually agreed terms of agreements, this theory would stand against net neutrality. However, the option 2 given above in this paper could be a solution in consideration of this contract theory (Audibert Murray, 2016). Conclusion The internet is a basic need of today for every individual and for every business. Absence of net neutrality will have service providers controlling the traffic and focusing on growing their profits instead of focussing on quality internet service. The comparison and logics stated in the ethical theories above leads us to support open internet as net neutrality treats everything equal without any discrimination and hence seems to be the correct thing to do and maximize the value of its outcomes by benefiting maximum end users of the internet, giving them all the rights to decide what is right for them and how much data they want to use. Actions that benefit the society as a whole are ethical actions. The net neutrality can bring a positive and a different shape to the internets future. References Audibert, L., Murray, A. (2016). A principled approach to network neutrality. Retrieved from https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67362/7/Murray_Principled%20approach_2016.pdf Chung, A., Xing, C. (2011). The Ethics of Net Neutrality. Retrieved from https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/fall11/p211.pdf Downes, L. (2017, March 31). The Tangled Web of Net Neutrality and Regulation. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation Geddes, M. (2016, April 05). Why You Should Demand 'Net Morality' Instead of 'Net Neutrality'. Retrieved from https://www.circleid.com/posts/20160405_why_you_should_demand_net_morality_instead_of_net_neutrality/ Given, C. (2007). Network Neutrality: Three Ethical Perspectives. Retrieved from https://craiggiven.org/docs/NN_CGIVEN.pdf Granados, N. (2017, May 31). The Net Neutrality Debate: Why There Is No Simple Solution. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsongranados/2017/05/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-why-there-is-no-simple-solution/#717e45d55c67 Gross, D. (2014, January 16). 'Pay to play' on the Web?: Net neutrality explained. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/15/tech/web/net-neutrality-explained/index.html Michel, F., Weidman, E. (2015, February 13). Is net neutrality ethical from a utilitarian framework? Retrieved from https://uconnbusinessethics.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/is-net-neutrality-ethical-from-a-utilitarian-framework/