Social Implications of Network Neutrality
The Internet is extraordinary in that it’s all-inclusive,
allowing equitable access to information, as well as opportunities for
collaboration and creating content. No doubt a non-neutral Internet would
become a club for the exclusive few (i.e. those with the deepest pockets), thus
setting-off a string of global social implications.
The economics of social implications that abound around the concept of network neutrality are far reaching because the World Wide Web affects the whole electronic global population. The debate has been around since 2000, and a key point in the debate is whether Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be allowed to implement control over data traffic by offering either a faster or slower lane of connectivity. The cost will be based on what the ISPs wish to charge, however, the trickledown effect on the consumers cannot be overlooked because the cost of products will be raised to make up the revenue used to pay for the priority to reach more people. Smaller businesses will be unable to pay for the privilege of faster service or even accessible service.
The two tier method is how the ISPs will label the distinction between the fast and slow connectivity. A more expensive and less productive Internet could possibly put the U.S. economy in the economy slow lane, which is a huge social implication in relation to worldwide connectivity. If network neutrality is not upheld, customers might have limited or no control over their accessibility to business, education, or leisure activities online and we may be looking at the possibility of some sites being pushed aside while others are prioritized due to additional fees charged by ISPs. Even though most believe there is a need to protect the notion of network neutrality, there is also the need for quality of higher speeds that are dependent on a user’s needs. All .org, .gov, or .edu sites being prioritized over marketable goods on a two tier connectivity lane could be a good thing, but to base the two tier lane on who is willing to pay for the ability is wrong for our economy, which would affect society as a whole. As it stands, we have a disparity between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” An Internet for which ISPs are permitted to charge more for top-tier service would only further that gap.
Without network neutrality, a digital divide is formed. The term digital divide refers to inequalities in accessing the Internet which affects the degree of use, causes a lack of knowledge of search strategies, provides poor quality of technical connections and social support, and hinders the ability to evaluate the quality of information (Dimaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001, p. 310). Digital divide emerges with public connection availability, private subscription price, services available, and the technology necessary to access these services (Dimaggio et al, 2001, p. 311).
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has focused on ensuring that every American has access to open and high-speed Internet service or broadband and they have guarded against government interference or regulation in regards to content development and delivery (Cook, 2014, p. 46). Barbara Stripling, the 2013-2014 president of the American Library Association (ALA) has voiced many concerns that priority to network access will be given to entertainment sites over educational sites. She anticipates that the January 2014 ruling will create a stronger divide between those who can afford the new charges and those who do not have the resources to purchase additional access or services (Cook, 2014, p. 47). There could be a pay-per-view approach to home and school Internet functions. Educational libraries will have to pay additional fees not only for rights for patrons to utilize content, but also for the use of broadband when sharing data (Cook, 2014, p. 48).
Areas with smaller populations are more likely to have limited use of the Internet because there are fewer choices among service providers and higher connection fees. As a result of this, it is reported that urban libraries are almost three times as likely as rural libraries to offer high speed Internet connections (Dimaggio et al, 2001, p. 312). The loss of network neutrality could seriously impact students in rural areas who rely heavily on online materials to supplement their learning (Cook, 2014, p. 47).
The crux of the debate over network neutrality ultimately finds its meaning when considering the end user. A good running definition of end user can be found in the FCC’s recent document on protecting the open Internet. In short, it is a person or entity who uses broadband Internet to access content (Commission Document, 2014). A distinction that is implied by this term is that end users do not contribute to the Internet’s content and therefore are distinctly different from providers.
For this online information resource, the idea of an end user is important in a couple of ways, but again, those affected by decisions made about network neutrality include anyone accessing the Internet over a broadband connection. The groups in focus here are libraries and society at-large. An article written by Vickie S. Cook examines the issue and ultimately concludes that an early 2014 ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals could negatively affect the way libraries provide services to users through restrictions applied by ISPs because it results in an increase in costs (Cook, 2014). If an increase in library costs occurs, that funding must come from somewhere and that is often in the form of taxes or tuition, but it is also possible that services would simply be limited. Another article, written by Sara White, suggests a similar possible outcome through a discussion of network neutrality that concludes that librarians should be aware of what happens with the legal decision because the outcome may affect libraries by limiting the free exchange of information, possibly the core of why a library exists, along with a reduction in library services (White, 2014).
These ideas on libraries as end users are similar to the general public as end user; the overwhelming concern centers on the limitation of the flow of the Internet and services offered, ranging from educational resources to entertainment outlets.
The outcome of legislation that either supports a tiered network or denies a neutral Internet holds significant impacts and implications beyond those in regards to the economy, the digital divide and direct end users. In the United States specifically, a lack of network neutrality would have a negative impact on social mobility, inhibit much-championed small businesses and start-ups, dampen the activities of non-profit organizations and affect the capabilities and functions of myriad other cultural and educational institutions. These entities depend on fair access to carry-out their responsibilities and their patrons rely on their daily functions.
An absence of network neutrality would result in the elimination of privacy and a revocation of freedoms considered fundamental, such as those of expression, thought, assembly and association, all of which presently extend to Internet activities. Non-neutral practices jeopardize this extension.
The whole of society relies on equitable Internet access, whether directly or indirectly. As technology emerges, the Internet continues to play the lead role in progressively digital, global lifestyles. Thus maintaining equal access is essential, not only for the health of the economy, to lessen the digital disparity and to provide equitable access to direct end users, but for the general well-being of individuals and institutions everywhere.
The economics of social implications that abound around the concept of network neutrality are far reaching because the World Wide Web affects the whole electronic global population. The debate has been around since 2000, and a key point in the debate is whether Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be allowed to implement control over data traffic by offering either a faster or slower lane of connectivity. The cost will be based on what the ISPs wish to charge, however, the trickledown effect on the consumers cannot be overlooked because the cost of products will be raised to make up the revenue used to pay for the priority to reach more people. Smaller businesses will be unable to pay for the privilege of faster service or even accessible service.
The two tier method is how the ISPs will label the distinction between the fast and slow connectivity. A more expensive and less productive Internet could possibly put the U.S. economy in the economy slow lane, which is a huge social implication in relation to worldwide connectivity. If network neutrality is not upheld, customers might have limited or no control over their accessibility to business, education, or leisure activities online and we may be looking at the possibility of some sites being pushed aside while others are prioritized due to additional fees charged by ISPs. Even though most believe there is a need to protect the notion of network neutrality, there is also the need for quality of higher speeds that are dependent on a user’s needs. All .org, .gov, or .edu sites being prioritized over marketable goods on a two tier connectivity lane could be a good thing, but to base the two tier lane on who is willing to pay for the ability is wrong for our economy, which would affect society as a whole. As it stands, we have a disparity between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” An Internet for which ISPs are permitted to charge more for top-tier service would only further that gap.
Without network neutrality, a digital divide is formed. The term digital divide refers to inequalities in accessing the Internet which affects the degree of use, causes a lack of knowledge of search strategies, provides poor quality of technical connections and social support, and hinders the ability to evaluate the quality of information (Dimaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001, p. 310). Digital divide emerges with public connection availability, private subscription price, services available, and the technology necessary to access these services (Dimaggio et al, 2001, p. 311).
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has focused on ensuring that every American has access to open and high-speed Internet service or broadband and they have guarded against government interference or regulation in regards to content development and delivery (Cook, 2014, p. 46). Barbara Stripling, the 2013-2014 president of the American Library Association (ALA) has voiced many concerns that priority to network access will be given to entertainment sites over educational sites. She anticipates that the January 2014 ruling will create a stronger divide between those who can afford the new charges and those who do not have the resources to purchase additional access or services (Cook, 2014, p. 47). There could be a pay-per-view approach to home and school Internet functions. Educational libraries will have to pay additional fees not only for rights for patrons to utilize content, but also for the use of broadband when sharing data (Cook, 2014, p. 48).
Areas with smaller populations are more likely to have limited use of the Internet because there are fewer choices among service providers and higher connection fees. As a result of this, it is reported that urban libraries are almost three times as likely as rural libraries to offer high speed Internet connections (Dimaggio et al, 2001, p. 312). The loss of network neutrality could seriously impact students in rural areas who rely heavily on online materials to supplement their learning (Cook, 2014, p. 47).
The crux of the debate over network neutrality ultimately finds its meaning when considering the end user. A good running definition of end user can be found in the FCC’s recent document on protecting the open Internet. In short, it is a person or entity who uses broadband Internet to access content (Commission Document, 2014). A distinction that is implied by this term is that end users do not contribute to the Internet’s content and therefore are distinctly different from providers.
For this online information resource, the idea of an end user is important in a couple of ways, but again, those affected by decisions made about network neutrality include anyone accessing the Internet over a broadband connection. The groups in focus here are libraries and society at-large. An article written by Vickie S. Cook examines the issue and ultimately concludes that an early 2014 ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals could negatively affect the way libraries provide services to users through restrictions applied by ISPs because it results in an increase in costs (Cook, 2014). If an increase in library costs occurs, that funding must come from somewhere and that is often in the form of taxes or tuition, but it is also possible that services would simply be limited. Another article, written by Sara White, suggests a similar possible outcome through a discussion of network neutrality that concludes that librarians should be aware of what happens with the legal decision because the outcome may affect libraries by limiting the free exchange of information, possibly the core of why a library exists, along with a reduction in library services (White, 2014).
These ideas on libraries as end users are similar to the general public as end user; the overwhelming concern centers on the limitation of the flow of the Internet and services offered, ranging from educational resources to entertainment outlets.
The outcome of legislation that either supports a tiered network or denies a neutral Internet holds significant impacts and implications beyond those in regards to the economy, the digital divide and direct end users. In the United States specifically, a lack of network neutrality would have a negative impact on social mobility, inhibit much-championed small businesses and start-ups, dampen the activities of non-profit organizations and affect the capabilities and functions of myriad other cultural and educational institutions. These entities depend on fair access to carry-out their responsibilities and their patrons rely on their daily functions.
An absence of network neutrality would result in the elimination of privacy and a revocation of freedoms considered fundamental, such as those of expression, thought, assembly and association, all of which presently extend to Internet activities. Non-neutral practices jeopardize this extension.
The whole of society relies on equitable Internet access, whether directly or indirectly. As technology emerges, the Internet continues to play the lead role in progressively digital, global lifestyles. Thus maintaining equal access is essential, not only for the health of the economy, to lessen the digital disparity and to provide equitable access to direct end users, but for the general well-being of individuals and institutions everywhere.