The scarcity of network resources, combined with the collective nature of some of the functions they support, demand the regulation of the Internet. Because the free play of decentralized interactions does not guarantee the efficiency market and decentralized coordination.

This does not necessarily lead to state regulation. However, any coordination at least guarantees a definition as clear and complete as possible of ownership rights over the components of the network and the information it transmits.

Basic functions are not abused for the purpose of exercising monopoly power. (access, interconnection, management of addressing systems)

In this context, it is important to note the existence of a security and transparency dilemma. On the one hand, maintaining the long-term viability of competition in network services and content requires a guarantee of transparency on the network.

The behavior of operators or service providers can be verified so that users can compare them and that the organizations responsible for monitoring competitive behavior can actually fulfill their duties.

On the other hand, legal protection of information transmitted by networks requires encryption of networks. Again, there is a need for regulation. Because all information exchanges should be accessible to everyone.

It is necessary to check that the purchases are not linked to activities harmful to the community. Examples include making deals, looting third party intellectual property, or engaging in criminal activities.

network services in computer network

5 types of network services

network services tryhackme

network services distribution

network services provider

network services pdf

network services quizlet

Therefore, trusted third parties should have the authority to audit usages from the network. An audit system should be developed to ensure their efficiency and impartiality.

More generally, note that the main risk Internet users are exposed to is information overflow. The main scarce resource in the knowledge economy is the ability to sort and discriminate information.

Also, part of the strategy of commercial operators is that Internet users do not have the means to effectively compare competing offers.

It will offer tailor-made services, save consumers on search costs, but must allow service providers to differentiate their offerings and differentiate very finely.

It is also based on the same logic that brand owners can impose their use in the internet space.

A brand creates a linked information services offer.

In this case, the provision of information on each aspect of the quality of service provided by a bidder allows users to save on the costs of searching for information.

The use of trademarks on the Internet allows search engines to automatically compare offers based on the criteria of cyber consumers. Terminologies need to be developed for the definition of products and services.

Although the question of applicability of such designations arises, the use of trademarks on the Internet is necessary.

This underlines that transparency, which is a necessary condition for maintaining the viability of competition, is not automatically provided by technology.

Secondly, it is necessary to reduce the costs of searching for information to zero. Transparency can only be guaranteed by a combination of provisions to limit the scope of encryption, standardize identifiers, and prohibit them.

It is necessary to use technical tools that prevent the information from being searched and automatically sorted.

Therefore, there are really needs for the regulation of the Internet. It remains to determine the legitimate and effective institutional framework to ensure its implementation.

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

The Internet is subject to a unique form of regulation, determined by the coexistence of institutions with a wide variety of statuses and partially conflicting powers. The result is an unsatisfactory institutional framework.

Its characteristics are explained by the boundaries of the pre-existing institutional framework. Yet it is marked by inherent shortcomings that justify imagining new corporate forms made possible by the original technical features of the network.

Limits of The Traditional Framework

The libertarian or liberal ideology of the creators of the Internet, by itself, does not explain why its regulation is not provided by traditional mechanisms, namely States and Interstate organizations.

The difficulty for states to initially understand the interests of this new type of network partially justifies the form taken by the mechanisms that regulate the network today.

However, if new institutional forms have emerged, it is primarily because the Internet contains features that call into question the effectiveness, even legitimacy, of traditional regulations.

Dr.Yaşam Ayavefe