Priyank38939 wrote:
Net Neutrality stipulates that Internet service providers (ISP) cannot partition their bandwidth such that different types of Internet communications have different maximum bandwidth capacities. For example, an ISP cannot relegate high bandwidth voice-over-IP (VoIP) traffic to a separate tunnel in an attempt to ensure that users of low-bandwidth functions such as plain-text email are not slowed down by the high-bandwidth users. Some individuals support implementing Net Neutrality on the principle that one group (i.e., users of high-bandwidth services) should not be effectively penalized for the actions of another group (i.e., users of slow-bandwidth services, who have a special traffic lane carved out for them, thereby slowing high-bandwidth users).
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument of the supporters of Net Neutrality mentioned above?
A) The jobs of many high-bandwidth users require these individuals to use high-bandwidth services.
B) Placing no restrictions on the bandwidth of individuals who use high-bandwidth services would force ISPs to purchase massive amounts of expensive additional bandwidth, disproportionately increasing the price of access for low-bandwidth users.
C) A strong and well respected lobbying firm recently revealed it has been hired by large telecommunications firms to oppose Net Neutrality on the grounds that it infringes upon a private company's ability to do business.
D) One country that mandated Net Neutrality saw a decrease in satisfaction of Internet users.
E) A recent court ruling upheld the principle that technology companies cannot discriminate in whom they serve or how they serve users.
Explain this. Will post OA later.
Conclusion to Weaken - Net neutrality(NN) => ISP cannot partition their bandwidth such that diff communication are allotted different bandwidth.
Counter premise - One group should not be penalized for the actions of other group.
Gap - however implementing NN will not allow a bandwidth separation between high end users and low end users, therefore this will adversely affect the users of low bandwidth users. It is like a paradox, if we allow separate tunnel for high end users avoiding NN this will ensure equal non-disrupted usage to all, however this is a kind of discrimination which is necessary to prevent low bandwidth users from the effect of users of high bandwidth
A) - It says MANY low end users also sometimes become high end users. Since, its return Many and not all so there must be some users left who will be affected.
B) - This clearly shows a discrimination towards low end users thus weakening the supporters and suggesting NN shouldn't be implemented.
C) - Out of scope
D) - We are not considered with the total number of users , again Out of Scope
E) - We are not discriminating against any user. This is will actually strengthen NN, hence opposite.
Clearly the answer is (B)
close
74% (02:14) correct 
