- View Original
- December 16th, 2017
The digital world was shocked on Thursday in the United States.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC, for its acronym in English) of that country announced the total repeal of the rules of net neutrality approved by the government of Barack Obama in 2015, which prevented companies providing charged additional fees for access faster access to certain content on the network.
Basically, they were obliged to treat all digital universe alike, which, in political terms, it meant that the authorities claimed that the companies providing the service is not blocked, slowed or discriminate in any way any content or applications.
Under the new law, everything will change.
Companies providing the service will from now on the freedom to experiment with new pricing, prioritize or block content without being accountable.
This could have great benefits for utility companies, says the BBC Ryan Singel, an expert on network neutrality Studies Center of Internet and Society at Stanford University.
And this is because, he says, that traditionally the US telephone market has been very uncompetitive.
"We have only four large companies providing wireless and broadband, which is terrible.
51% of Americans only have an option to choose their Internet service , "he adds.
With this new model, it is estimated that these companies can raise more money from netizens and also invest in improvements to its services.
"Removing restrictions, these providers will be the main beneficiaries , increase their profits, become more competitive and this will allow them to expand and improve service or take it to smaller communities , " says the expert.
But if for companies will bring benefits and in theory help small communities to have greater access to the network, what consequences this could have for most users or businesses that use Internet services in the United be States ?
And how can this affect the rest of the world?
Rising prices Connection
According Singel, one of the first effect will be a rise in the prices of connection .
However, the specialist explains in an interview with BBC that the main consequences will not be made visible immediately and will not have a "direct" effect on ordinary users, although these will be the most affected.
"The vote approved Thursday allows large Internet companies seek ways to charge more money to companies that are online . That is, it will allow them to raise prices if they want to have faster Internet access. "
So far, any company that wants to use the network could make it independent of its power or importance.
He had the same right a young programmer of a people of Massachusetts who would like to open a blog or create an application on the benefits of beekeeping that a giant like Google.
But from now on, companies can discriminate which users give a wider bandwidth or who limit or cut services.
For the users
"It 's good to say that the first consequences will not fall directly on individuals. The fastest way to make money is behind the companies that are on the network, which in turn, will be reflected in the experience of ordinary Internet users , "says Singel.
The problem, he adds, is that the above will make the services we use online as streaming (for watching videos or listening to music) become much more expensive as well.
" Netflix, for example, will become more expensive .
As they will have to pay higher fees for using better quality internet to offer their services, they need to charge more also their users to keep.
So we see that the Internet will become much more expensive in the services for which you pay , "says the specialist at Stanford University.
Other services, such as online sales, may also experience a rise in prices: having to pay extra for internet service, prices also rise in products.
Similarly, as some companies will benefit over other, larger, like Amazon, would benefit, while small entrepreneurs will dismunuidas their saleability .
In addition, the specialist believes that, overall, could create a "differentiated internet" for those who can pay more and for those who pay less.
"As in some countries we find that Internet service sold in" packages ", as with phone plans or TV channels, grouped by vendor," he says.
But it will not be there.
less variety
Singel warns that there will be less free services : since companies now offer such utilities will pay more, if no charge will be made more viable from the economic point of view.
This, he says, will not affect too much to large companies that can pay for this.
However, it could mean the end of smaller companies or failure of new projects in the network.
"Since prices for better internet will increase and suppliers so can control at will make fewer new network companies, there will be less choice and will power will continue to focus on Internet giants and fewer possibilities for innovation and pluralism , "he says.
"It will be more controlled by the most powerful internet companies, there will be fewer possibilities for digital entrepreneurs make their projects and generally limited freedom and variety of the network," he says.
Censorship
Another of the most controversial points of this new law is that companies providing Internet services may block or censor content for any reason.
"If Comcast and Verizon, for example, decide that we do not want to have sites that sell weapons, they can block those sites.
In the above rules, companies were required to keep their servers any page regardless of whether they were for or against their content. Now all that changes, "says Singel.
During the previous law, any service and any applications were legal in US law and no one could interfere with it without a court order or federal. Now this prerogative belongs also to service providers.
" Any company or blogger, for example, advocate for controversial speeches or opinions polemics could see your web censored or blocked , " he says.
But internet is a global phenomenon, the consequences will not be left only to the United States.
global implications
According to Singel, the lack of variety of internet and "boring" network will be one of the main consequences of global elimination of net neutrality in the United States.
Other losers will be the companies or even foreign users that hold information on servers in that country.
"If a foreign company wants to use US internet services to reach more users in that country, you may find you will not have the same ability to distribute its content to a local company or an Internet giant," he says.
The chances of entering the US digital market, said the expert, will become more difficult, bureaucratic and processes that will be internet providers who will have the last word .
A similar effect for businesses, innovators, small businesses or host applications seeking information on US servers: they could find the speed to access them slow down or increase.
From now on , the nature or size of the company will ensure you have a better or worse Internet service .
"There are companies that are outside the US to which they may be required to pay more too if they want to reach customers of Verizon or Comcast, for example, if they want to reach users of these companies," he says.
symbolic consequences
Moreover, the expert noted that the consequences are not only in practical terms.
"For a long time the United States had been a leader in Internet neutrality, an international example .
The law signed by Obama to regulate the Internet in a landmark 2015 became internationally "he says.
The new law, as Singel, is "a very bad message to the rest of the world, because they show how big phone companies can dictate to governments what to do."
But according Singel, it could also have political consequences within American society.
"It 's good to clarify that a measure taken despite widespread opposition of public opinion , experts and even transcends the classical division of opinion between Republicans and Democrats , " he says
A survey published this week by the University of Maryland said that 83% of Americans opposed to changing the law. Only among Republicans, the level of opposition was 75%.
"This, of course, is also negative for the image of the government, because it is something that the people did not want, but he did not listen and approved it anyway.
That's not a good way to make people believe in democracy and democratic processes, "he concludes.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
No se admiten comentarios con datos personales como teléfonos, direcciones o publicidad encubierta