NET NEUTRALITY What is INTERNET Internet is a

NET NEUTRALITY

What is INTERNET? • Internet is a well defined, single, global network of computers ranging from smartphones to massive servers. • Internet operates on a key defining protocol called Internet Protocol (IP) which states that all computers on internet are identified with their IP address. • IP takes the data in form of data packets which could be carrying EMails, Videos, Web Pages, ETC. • The purpose of Internet is simply to carry the data from one computer to another using the IP.

Internet: Facts and Figures v. Out of the total world population of 7. 2 billion, the Internet users are only 3. 2 billion. v. India’s Internet user base has grown to 354 million people and the remaining 900 million are still not part of the Digital Revolution. v. The Internet penetration in India is 28. 3% as compared to the world average of 45%.

What is NET NEUTRALITY? • The principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source and without favouring or blocking particular product or websites. • Net neutrality supports freedom of express and equality of opportunities by enabling people to seek, receive and impart information and interact as equals. • An important aspect is that everyone should be able to innovate without permission from anyone or any entity.

Entities Associated Internet Service Providers Internet Companies Consumers Internet Users Non-Internet Users

Implications of NET NEUTRALITY: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) Internet with Net Neutrality: v. ISPs will have no control over the content. v. They will make money only from the data usage. v. They have no control over the billing of various transactions on e-commerce platforms. v. ISPs argue that their revenues will decline if Net Neutrality is preserved. Internet without Neutrality: v. Monitor traffic volume and throttle data. v. Telecom operators prioritise certain traffic according to the value they ascribe to it and charge consumers separately. v. Telecom operators to charge fees from content providers or internet companies.

Implications of NET NEUTRALITY: Internet Companies Internet with Net Neutrality: v. Net Neutrality is crucial for small business owners, start-ups and entrepreneurs, who rely on the open Internet to launch their businesses, create a market, advertise their products and services, and distribute products to customers. v. We need the open Internet to foster job growth, competition and innovation. v. Net Neutrality lowers the barriers of entry for entrepreneurs, start-ups and small businesses by ensuring the Web is a fair and level playing field. Internet without Net neutrality v. ISPs will have the power to charge whatever they want for specific content. v. The ability of smaller and start-up Apps to compete with established Apps may be affected if they are unable to secure access to specific telecom operators or afford access-tiering charges.

Implications of NET NEUTRALITY: Consumers – Internet Users Internet with Net Neutrality: v. Net neutrality supports freedom of expression and equality of opportunity by enabling people to seek, receive and impart information, and to interact as equals. v. The open Internet allows communities to tell their own stories and to organize for social justice. Internet without Net neutrality v. There would be no fair access to consumers for what they pay for. v. Consumers to pay more for Internet access, and expect lower download speeds due to congested networks.

Implications of NET NEUTRALITY: Consumers – Non Internet Users Internet with Net Neutrality: They do not enjoy any benefits as they are not on the Internet Platform. Internet without Net neutrality v. Nearly 900 million Indian population is not familiar with the benefits of Internet. By providing free access to a portion of Internet, this population can become part of the digital revolution. v. Improved Internet access would promote economic growth and move large numbers of people out of poverty. v. Health care and education will be improved. v. Having more people online with access to information improves transparency and accountability in the public sector.

Ethical Analysis: Questions Asked v If Net Neutrality is not preserved, will it produce the most good? v. Does the elimination of Net Neutrality threatens the underlying idea of the open Internet? v. In determining whether Net Neutrality is to be preserved or not, are the people (consumers) to be treated equally or proportionately?

Ethical Analysis: Utilitarian Approach Course of Action: Net Neutrality is not preserved Stakeholders Happiness Internet Service Providers (ISPs) Enhanced control over the Internet and increased earnings Internet Companies Decreased competition SMEs - Utility High costs and restrictions. Medium - Lower opportunities for growth and risk of elimination by big players. Low - Violation of freedom of expression and opportunity as well as increased expenditure. Low Opportunity to enter the Internet platform as well as free access to knowledge and opportunities (900 million). - Existing Internet Users Non Internet Users Unhappiness Conclusion: Due to high utility, the action is ethical. Very High

Ethical Analysis: Kantian Approach Maxim Formulation: In order to provide free Internet access and gain more control over the Internet, ISPs control and throttle the data accessed by consumers according to the value ISPs ascribe to the data. Universalize the Maxim: All the data on the Internet is controlled and throttled by the ISPs in order to provide free Internet access and gain more control over the Internet. Effects on PSW: In the perturbed social world (PSW), it would be a common phenomenon to control and throttle the Internet data as per the ISPs preferences, which would curb the freedom of expression and opportunity of consumers. This violates the underlying idea of the open Internet access. Conclusion: The maxim would not be an effective policy, hence the elimination of Net Neutrality is unethical.

Ethical Analysis: Justice and Fairness Approach v. Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. v. Fairness refers to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. v. According to Aristotle – equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally, i. e. individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved. v. As per the ethicist John Rawls, the stability of a society depends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly.

Ethical Analysis: Justice and Fairness Approach Applying the Test Question: With the elimination of Net Neutrality, will there be a fair distribution of benefits and burdens? Validity: If everyone has equal value as a person, then everyone has an equal claim to a share. If there is a reason they are unequal, then they should get an unequal share. How are the benefits and burdens distributed? The benefits of free Internet access are provided to the underprivileged which can help in improving their social and economical welfare. But at the same time this free access will be available to existing users also. The burdens of extra charges will come into picture if they wish to access the data beyond free access. Is this distribution fair? Since the certain portion of Internet can be accessed freely by all and at the same time the chances of improvement of the welfare of the underprivileged are also high, therefore the distribution seems fair. Conclusion: It seems ethical to provide free Internet access to bridge the digital gap.

Internet. org and Zero Rating Plans Flaws v. These plans are misleadingly marketed as providing access to the full Internet, when in fact it only provides access to a limited number of Internet-connected services that are approved by Facebook and local ISPs. v. The project acts as a "walled garden" in which some services are favoured over others — again, a violation of net neutrality. v. These plans provide Facebook and local ISPs the authority to block certain content and individual users which is totally unacceptable.

Internet. org and Zero Rating Plans Flaws v. The privacy policy doesn’t provide adequate protections to the new Internet users about how their data will be used. v. These programs prohibit the use of TLS (Transport Layer Security), Secure Socket Layer (SSL) or HTTPS encryption by participating services thereby putting users at risk. v. The new users getting free access could get stuck on a separate and unequal path to Internet connectivity, which will serve to widen — not narrow — the digital divide.

Ethical Analysis: Internet. org and Zero Rating Plans Blanchard and Peale Model It suggests that the very existence of a “grey area” between right and wrong is no excuse for dispensing with ethics. Applying the Test If the answer to any of the 3 questions is negative, the decision is unethical. v. Is it Legal? Yes. v. Is it balanced? No. v. How does it make me feel? I would feel bad if the promises are conditional. Conclusion: We support the cause to bring the next 900 million people online but these existing plans are not the correct mode to do so as there is no “right way to do a wrong thing. ”

The Common Good Approach v. It states that the life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. v. This approach suggests respect and compassion for others-especially the vulnerable-are the basis of ethical reasoning. v. It also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone. Conclusion: It is extremely important to bring the next 900 million Indians online as soon as possible so that their quality of life and welfare is improved and to ensure that they are not left far behind in this Digital Revolution.

Recommendations v. Drive broadband infrastructure expansion through increased private investment and removal of barriers. v. Intensify competition and level the playing field to increase access, reduce cost and stimulate demand. v. Open access and infrastructure sharing. v. Policy makers, regulators and industry should agree to abide by transparent spectrum plans. v. Universal access to quality and affordable Internet.