A neutral Internet is a place where the owners of networks (communications corporations like AT&T or Comcast) which enable data to be transferred over the Internet allow content to flow in a way that does not discriminate on the creator, user, or type of content. Net Neutrality is a term that refers to the open ended, or neutral, access that subscribers and creators have in connecting to the Internet. A neutral Internet guarantees that small start-up companies, where most Internet companies begin, are given a chance to compete with larger firms like Google. It also ensures that the owners of networks are not allowed to charge a premium to companies like Yahoo! or Microsoft to allow one company to gain a bandwidth advantage over the other. Companies that own the networks say that the cost of maintaining and expanding their networks makes these possible revenue sources necessary to sustain affordable broadband access (WSJ 2006). Network providers seek the increased profit that a “non-neutral” internet would generate, but policy experts have argued that a neutral internet is the optimal outcome for consumers and providers.
Here is a look at the Net Neutrality case study:
This case study provides an important glimpse into the process of how ideas and institutions interact to influence policy. Net neutrality began with an important decision by the FCC, given force by a Supreme Court case, and eventually moved into the halls of Congress. Looking at the process through which net neutrality moved out of obscurity and into the mainstream political dialog underscores the most important aspect of public policy: policy does not exist in a vacuum. Decisions by institutions like the FCC, Congress, and the Supreme Court interact with opinions of the public and experts. Public policy is not a linear process. A bill does not suddenly become a law. The process involves a variety of interests, institutions, and actors which allow the government to take action (or not take action) on particular issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment