Introduction

Net neutrality has raised an alarming concern about the internet’s open, accessible, and innovative features. In the case of Comcast, internet service providers had enforced discriminatory access and blocking. To ensure that peer-to-peer software should not harm the quality of the internet, the pressure was transferred from content providers to internet service providers. The loss that occurred by the P2P protocols is that ISPs didn’t get premium revenues from the content providers. In my opinion, the principle of net neutrality must be preserved and regulated.

In 2015, in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promulgated the Open Internet Order, where reclassified broadband services as telecommunication services, subject to common carrier regulation under Title II of the Communications Act, 1934. The FCC had ordered the internet to restore freedom to repeal the net neutrality protections in the United States. The issue of net neutrality was a complicated issue highlighted after the Internet Policy Statement, 2005. The companies had reassessed their choices because of the public outcry, official investigation, and practical changes in the technology.

The Internet Service Providers had appealed against the ruling which was by a three-judge bench at the US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, rejecting the appeal with the 2:1 decision, it would be challenging the FCC’s reclassification of broadband. In Europe, after 18 months of negotiation, the European Parliament inked the first European Union Rules on Net Neutrality. South America and Chile amended their telecommunications law in order to preserve network neutrality. Israel, Japan, and the Republic of Korea have amended their provisions for the requirement of net neutrality. India has also taken action where the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has prohibited the service providers from levying the discriminatory rates of data. The Government, technological companies, and Internet activists took the stand that the arguments against net neutrality by the communication companies have merit.

The Issue of Netflix v. Comcast Regarding Net Neutrality

The idea of net neutrality has been enshrined in the now-defunct U.S. Open Internet Rules that prohibited major internet providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT& T from favouring some online services at the expense of rivals. In 2010, Open Internet Order was struck down by the federal judge, the federal communication commission provides that it wasn’t the case. The FCC’s order applies to the “last mile” connection into consumers’ homes, specifically exempted, existing arrangement for network interconnection deal struck by Comcast and Netflix last month is not covered by the rules.

The facts that paid peering agreements have been a standard feature of the Internet’s behind the scenes architecture for many years- and where explicitly allowed by the FCC- Netflix now wants to frame such deals in terms of net neutrality. short termfromComcast was extracting unjust tax from Netflix. Netflix net neutrality had outburst the federal and state regulator are scrutinizing Comcast’s proposed $45 billion deal to buy Time Warner Cable, which would create a broadband titan with unprecedented market power. As the proposed deal of the Time Warner Cable deal, connect will extend the commitment it made during its NBC Universal review to abide by open internet principles until 2018.

The latest conflict between Netflix and Comcast underscores the ongoing shift in the commercial architecture of the Internet as consumers use increasing amounts of bandwidth. It also highlights growing leverage held by broadband giants like Comcast in negotiations with consent content companies that were plunged into a period of uncertainty.

The Case Arguments of Telecom and Cable Companies

Treating all the data on the Internet equal is the same as toll charges on all vehicles on the tollways. The Telcos, ISPs, and Cable Multiple System Operators (MSOs) had faced the loss of billions of dollars in building the infrastructure and net neutrality clause denying the recoup of their investment. In the case of Netflix, no one ever gets a return on continued network investment, and they have to stop investing in the network. Net neutrality would be beneficial to users in the short-term but in the long term, it will result in little or no investment for the infrastructure. The skewed economics would tend to the massively reduced competitive markets. The regulatory action prohibits the company from trying out different business models like creating a fast lane for high bandwidth services or offering a select number of services for free. The streaming videos or the streaming video calls need higher speed for accessing applications like Twitter or Emails.

The network would be flexible and grants flexibility to the network manager to deal with congestion, latency, and unforeseen problems. The main legal objection with the FCC’s lacks the statutory authority to reclassify broadband as the telecommunication services. The public analogy describes the business of ISP’s. According to the Open Internet Order, the internet isn’t classified as telecommunication services but it was classified as an information service and enjoys a light-touch regulatory approach which resulted in the rapid proliferation of technologies and investments. The principle of Internet freedom means the internet should be free from the government’s interference.

Conclusion

It’s true that many people fear government regulations and net neutrality legislation is not any different. The oligopoly of the telecom market would hurt the consumer if there is no government intervention. If Government allows the telecom to tier the internet, consumers will be forced to pay multiple times for the same service, which could result in telcos becoming the internet gatekeeper that could greatly influence what stays and goes on the internet.

The cases against net neutrality are weak. There were misleading views that the free market will even out any inequities of their plans when they should clearly know that their industry is anything but a free market.

If the internet is tiered, the greatest losses will be to the consumers. It would affect their freedom of speech, which should be offered to everyone and not limited by the government, companies, or the price. As the same form of internet has been offered to the public. The download and upload should not be regulated on any stringent measures. Companies such as Verizon and Comcast were creating monopolies and charging a ridiculous amount of money for the people who were using them. Communication would be barred if the entities of the internet were regulated. Government shouldn’t prohibit the natural flow of the internet.

Net Neutrality should exist but rules and regulations should be added to avoid cyber-crime. Government should not formulate bills to monopolize the internet companies and section them off. 

-Shrey Tandon

Amity Law School, Noida