9/531 Week 1 Assignment 1: A Case Study

I believe that the dilemma is simple: a student challenges the school official authority. I said simple because not for the dilemma’s complexity rather for the regularity with which a young behave in a rebellious manner.

I just wanted to pass along an update. I got with Kathy for more clarification on what needs to be changed and I am currently working on the requirements.

The second video “Moyers & Company: Is Net Neutrality Dead?” is about a debate regarding net neutrality, which is the right to communicate freely online, keeping the major internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast from increasing costs for costumers to not slow down or block any content they want to use, also called price discrimination, a service offered at different prices by the same provider in different markets. As there are only few internet providers, barriers are set by limiting the area where some of them are allowed to supply their services to, limiting competition and increasing costs for consumers.

Federal Communications Commission, otherwise known as the FCC, voted two-to-one in May of 2017, to begin the tearing down of the net neutrality law (Rushe), that which protected individuals from companies that purposefully slowed down service lanes so as to regulate what was being broadcasted across computers. Chief internet official Ajit Pai at the FCC stated that he believed that the dismantling of the net neutrality laws could pave the way for a more competitive marketplace, that which would “lift ‘heavy-handed’ internet regulations that overly restricted internet providers” (White). The repealing of net neutrality seems to mainly garner approval from big companies, such as Verizon, and more recently, Comcast, companies that would do well by the repealing of such a law. With net neutrality gone companies such as those listed above would be able to, legally, regulate and control what people saw on the internet by slowing down or speeding up lanes depending on the affiliation the company has with that specific website (Finley). However, even with Title II in effect, some companies have found a way to circumvent those rules in order to ‘play favorites’ as it were. For instance, when AT&T customers access the Direct TV’s streaming service they may find that the data extrapolated from the service used did not count towards their current data limit’s (Finley). It is also believed that with no regulations in place regarding net neutrality, companies have the potential of becoming dictators and blocking

Antonio Vesselinov Daniel DeWolf Composition 101 4/27/15 Net Neutrality: Containing Censorship In George Orwell’s novel “1984,” in a futuristic society the main character Winston Smith has a prominent job of rewriting history for the outer party. What he does for his job is rewrite the history of the past, to form with the views of the present. In the novel everyone has TV screens with a cameras in them.

Facts: The FCC, respondent, established The Open Internet Order in 2010, which put into place new rules regarding network neutrality. The order made it so broadband service providers had to be transparent with consumers, and could not practice anti-blocking, or discrimination with their services. The first order details that providers must “publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performances, and commercial terms of [their] broadband Internet access.” The second order prohibits “block[ing] lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management,” “applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is a formal policy actor (Kraft and Furlong, (2015), has faced numerous challenges in resolving the difficulties involving Net Neutrality. Jamison and Layton state that “In 2005, FCC adopted an Internet Policy Statement consisting of four consumer-centric guiding principles, also referred to as the Four Freedoms to ensure that broadband networks are widely deployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers. When the agency attempted to apply these rules in 2008, the DC Circuit rejected the FCC’s decision on jurisdictional grounds. These principles could have been successful if the FCC could have administered this policy. In 2010, the FCC’s second attempt was a light-handed, multistakeholder approach for addressing net neutrality issues. In 2014, the DC Court again reversed the FCC on jurisdictional grounds (Jamison & Layton, 2016).

Without the net neutrality rules preventing data discrimination, for an ISP to be legally able block cut off a competitor’s direct access to their own customers is an ideal business move. Hurting a competitor’s sales while also restricting the customers access to only certain profitable services allows the ISP to once again benefit at the consumers expense. Consequently, the consumer is stuck in a monopolical situation, possessing no way to explore, much less purchase, better options for internet access because they can’t access any of their current ISPs’ competitors. In turn, the consumer is forced into steeper prices because they have no way of reaching better services (2). Ironically, situations where larger companies can weed out all of their competitors for complete control of their base has seen government intervention to restore the balance of the marketplace; however, the FCC is allowing ISPs to effectively create a monopoly over their customers. If nothing is done to combat grievous mistake of net neutrality, the ISPs will begin to make us, as the customer’s, suffer the repercussions as they have done in the

An infamous phrase you most likely have not heard of; net neutrality. This is the law established February 26, 2015, where internet monitors and government were to treat all websites equally and not charger differently for different online access. It means that internet service providers should share their free networks without any conditions. The same way that cell companies shouldn’t control your forwarding and receive calls not what you say, your service provider shouldn’t hinder your

Skeptics of net neutrality can often contend with those who support net neutrality by drawing comparisons with the Cable Act of 1992. The act was meant to protect the consumers by forcing cable companies to carry most local broadcast channels and prohibited them from charging local broadcasters to carry their own signal. One such argument came from Thomas W. Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University; he stated that the act’s inability to maintain the number of customers, let alone increase raises the question of the real effects of “consumer protection” laws despite its initial intentions. Hazlett likens net neutrality by insisting that it’s likely to repeat the same consequences, which stifle progress and profit.

The article shares the idea of the restriction to our freedom of using the internet. This has become relevant with current technology as it enables ISPs to control what one sees and uses. Barbara van Schewick explain that without network neutrality rules, users are in a controlled environment that they do not belong into. This entire situation can be thought of as a battlefield. The innocent users are stuck in the middle between the ISPs and internet applications battling. People using the internet are effected in something they should not be involved in. Network providers want an increase in profit hence they slow down bandwidth, block

Therefore, paid prioritization is already in place in wider range. Ironically net neutrality doesn’t argue on those arrangements and such thing is called as reasonable network management. But what is required is, such peer and traffic prioritization should be available to everyone equally. It is biased on part of ISPs who try to steal the show from behind and showing as if nothing is done without anyone’s knowledge.

Net neutrality is one of the major issues the US is facing today. It is a very complicated matter between FCC and cable companies. Net neutrality is a principle that all online traffic should be treated equally. However, cable companies do not agree with this principle. They want to introduce an idea called fast lane. This is where customers are required to pay extra money to maintain high speed internet, but the internet speed remain the same. All they are doing is reducing the speeds for others who don’t pay extra and overall speed remains the same. For example, a car can be driven on a highway with speed limit 70mph. If we introduce the idea of fast lane, all we are doing is reducing the speed limit to 30mph for people who don’t pay extra.

Who has the right to decide how fast people can browse the internet? There is a question if the service providers should or should not offer a tiered system, in which higher paying customers would get access to a higher speed internet. Sounds about right, don’t it? The more you pay the more you get.

• 1. Become familiar with RFID technology and its potential uses in Harley-Davidson’s supply chain using the information presented in this chapter and information you obtain through the Online Companion links, your favorite search engine, and your library. In about 400 words, evaluate the advantages and disadvantages for Harley-Davidson of replacing its bar codes and scanners technology with RFID.