HOW GETTING DOMINATED IS GOOD?

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN A WORLD WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY? IS ISP DOMINATED INTERNET REALLY THAT BAD?
A topic where people have responded with hyperbole, demagoguery and even personal threats to the very idea of a not neutral net . In fact some of the new age Nostradamuses predict the internet will stop working, democracy will collapse, carnage will ensue and monsters will cover the land. And plenty of articles available on the internet say so as well. Well ,relax guys the internet isnt going anywhere . I am going to analyze the situation in which the world is bereft of the net neutrality concept , and try to alleviate the prevailing animosity on the subject- YES IT CAN BE GOOD TO HAVE NO NET NEUTRALITY -
IDEA: IT WILL PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF AN INDIVIDUAL
Analysis : Advocates of net neutrality manoeuvre the free speech argument(that a non-neutral net shall inhibit us from exercising the right of free speech ) while defending the concept . However , I argue that free speech can’t exist without privacy. Understand a simple logic- the moment net neutrality exists , you need an entity which would police the ISPs , and guess who that entity is going to be — YOUR GOVERNMENT . The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic.In fact , ISP opposition to the current rules has nothing to do with the basic net neutrality principles. What they really object to is when the administration takes a decision to take the extraordinary step of asserting expansive power to regulate nearly every facet of the internet by classifying it as a public utility, which goes far beyond protecting net neutrality. Once installed, can we trust any government, to use that access in a benign manner?
Evidence : If the reader is having any doubts on the highlighted question , take the US Government as an example . The U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s book- NO PLACE TO HIDE reveals that the US government tampers with internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid its spying programs.And this is just of the many countries which have been accused of doing that . And that too, the ones which came under media scrutiny .(who knows how many more examples could be there , considering what a big game changer the internet can be these days for govts- recall the 2016 US Presidential elections) Is this the organization(here the govt.) we trust to take even more control of the Internet? For that matter , in any society during the time of elections , the very excuse of implementing net neutrality can very easily be used for the sake of enhancing the political agenda of the incumbent , regardless of how powerful the election commission of that country is .
ANOTHER BIG QUESTION IS : If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before.
2) IDEA : COUNTERING THE BLOCKING ARGUMENT — WILL ISPs REALLY RESORT TO BLOCKING?
ANALYSIS : ISPs highly value the open internet and the principles of net neutrality, much more than some animated activists would have you think. Why? For one, because it’s a better way of making money than a closed internet
A network company makes the most money when its pipe is full with activity. The more consumers use, the more profitable the business. With new, compelling services, consumer demand rises for higher speeds. Degrading the internet, blocking speech and trampling what consumers expect would not be profitable, and the public backlash would be unbearable. Economic self-interest and the pursuit of profits tilts decidedly toward an open internet.
On top of that what needs to be understood is the fact that the ISPs themselves face a lot of competition . WHY? Internet service providers will have to succumb to their competition should they close up the web into a little box. The cost-effectiveness at which a fiber network(the prevalent medium for providing internet today ) can be implemented makes it very easy for up-and-coming competitors to eat up the dinosaur service providers. It’s inevitable that non-neutral companies will fail at their game if they try this on wired networks.
The argument invigorates my hypotheses that ISPs are not going to block content on the internet just like that , as has been projected in the various articles I read. The moment they do that , they are signing their own death warrants .
3) IDEA : WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY
ANALYSIS :The power of the ISPs , in absence of net neutrality , has been perceived in very pessimistic manner by people . I say it can be very positively channelized .
ISPs can in that case act as a PUNISHER for companies like facebook and google for their lapses in handling the personal data of people . The argument is vivified by the recent controversy surrounding facebook , in light of the Cambridge Analytica scam , in which it imprudently compromised on the personal data of quite a few users . Despite the callousness shown as well as severe condemnation by the international community , Facebook didn’t lose much of its market share in the due course of the controversy . Its high time that entities like Google and Facebook come under some sort of rigorous punishment mechanism , which also makes them feel liable to the users . ISPs can do that ,since the whole ‘‘shut down Facebook’’ movement didnt really do much damage to facebook . They can block/slow down connections to these websites as a consequence of them not adhering to responsible behavior. It would create a situation where these entities actually have something to lose-since prolonged slow connections (or blocking simply ) may cause users to shift to other mediums which serve the same purpose. That may even cause the introduction of new entrants in the field.
EVIDENCE : In 2014 , the UK High Court ruled that ISPs must try to block sites selling counterfeit goods, thereby , recognizing the role of ISPs to execute policing mechanisms . Thus not just punishment , the very mandate is a pretty broad one which would include various aspects involved in policing of these websites .
All in all , do think before you get swayed away by all the stuff prevalent on this topic on the internet!