Analysis Of The Argument Of Net Neutrality

To be completely honest, I have never heard Net-Neutrality before this discussion post. After doing some research on this topic, I’ve come to the conclusion that I am against Net-Neutrality.

I am writing to inform you that I believe it is in the best interest of the people of the United States and the Earth that on the December 14th the vote is in favor of upholding net neutrality. Net Neutrality is of vital importance to maintain a free and open internet available to anyone who may wish to use it.

The internet is under attack by large corporations like your internet provider trying to slow down services like Netflix and other entertainment platforms and the reason they do this is to try and get people to switch over to their services.

The web has ‘taken over’ 81% of Americans lives! Most of us don't ever think about where the data we research is stored and what can be done with it. We would like to believe that searching the web as freely as we do will be a lifelong privilege. That carriers and companies cannot be biased and raise the fees for faster responses or even manipulate your searches. But there are no such promises.

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 purpose of this report is to inform the reader about Net Neutrality from every angle. The problem with Net Neutrality is that there are those who are for it and those against it thus creating disagreements on how the internet should be ran. Those who want Net Neutrality want the internet to remain open so that when you or I log on we can access any site any content equally. Those who are against Net Neutrality would participate in

Net neutrality is the principle that supports free speech on the internet and allows us our right to freely communicate online (Singel, 2017). Net neutrality restricts major internet service providers, such as AT&T and CenturyLink, from discriminating upon certain online data because of content. Without net neutrality, these internet service providers would have the power to block or decrease the speed of specific internet content (Reardon, 2015). The providers would also be capable of charging money from internet users who want to access particular websites or data within websites. Websites that receive a large amount of users on a daily basis, such as Twitter and YouTube, would be given faster data speeds than less visited websites. This would lead to large companies monopolizing internet content, which would impact the way we browse online in a negative way. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets restrictions and regulations for broadcast, telephone and cable communications in the United States of America. The FCC is attempting to put an end to net neutrality. The vote to do so will take place on December 14, 2017. Ajit Pai, the current chairman of the FCC, is a former employee of Verizon Wireless. Verizon is one of the major internet service providers which would greatly benefit from net neutrality being abolished. Many questions have been raised concerning Pai’s past connections with Verizon, and a numerous amount of individuals believe that this is why Pai is pushing an end to net neutrality. Companies like eBay and Amazon will be required to pay more money to the major internet service providers in order to receive faster data speeds and better user efficiency. This would eventually lead to consumers having to pay more money for their performed endeavors online. The internet service providers would also have the potential to bundle websites into packages. Consumers would then have to purchase these packages in order to access specific websites. This is extremely similar to how DirecTV, Dish Network and other cable providers offer packages for television channels. Tom Wheeler is the former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. Wheeler expressed his thoughts on

Before this assignment I had no idea what net neutrality was, I’m embarrassed to write that confession. “Net Neutrality is the assurance that access to the Web and its content will not be blocked, slowed down, or sped up depending on where that access is based or who owns the access point(s)” (Boswell). This to me means that the FCC (Federal Communications Commissions) want the internet to be open to all traffic, or online customers. They don’t want companies to be able to block or charge premium rates for the use of service. This allows all data to be equal and everyone is on the same “fast lane” of the road, sort of speck.

Net neutrality is internet service providers like Xfinity, AT&T, and Fios that enable access to all contents and applications, for example Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat etc. regardless to the source, without favoring or blocking products and or websites.

You should take a stand against losing Net Neutrality, you should learn for yourself from an unbiased source about Net Neutrality, and you should and can contact the FCC and cause a change, it’s been done before. I personally hate jumping on the bandwagon of ‘This is the big thing we must take a stand against’ only to later find out that wasn’t quite the case and people were getting too enthusiastic and accomplished nothing. This is not one of those cases.

The concept of network neutrality (more commonly referred to as net neutrality) has been a fixture of debates over United States telecommunications policy throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century. Based upon the principle that internet access should not be altered or restricted by the Internet Service Provider (ISP) one chooses to use, it has come to represent the hopes of those who believe that the internet still has the potential to radically transform the way in which we interact with both people and information, in the face of the commercial interests of ISPs, who argue that in order to sustain a competitive marketplace for internet provision, they must be allowed to differentiate their services. Whilst this debate has

To encapsulate thursdays decision; The FCC decided that ISPs(internet service providers), needed not, have rules keeping them from blocking or changing the speed of online content, or prioritizing their providers internet content. The FCC made this move to veer away from the act of regulating the internet, according to CNN “In the absence of a firm ban on these actions, providers will be required to publicly disclose any instance of blocking, throttling or paid prioritization. It will then be evaluated based on whether or not the activity is anti-competitive.”(Fiegerman, 2017). The Federal Communications Commission also decided to move internet protection issues to The Federal Trade Commission.

Imagine that you're an ordinary high school student, you have a project that's due next block. It seems like it's a relatively easy project, and you expect to finish it in a maximum of thirty minutes. Your free block starts, and you hurriedly rush onto the internet to obtain the information you need. Google returns several credible results, but they're all blocked because your topic isn't "school appropriate". This is an example of the power we will be entrusting to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). When net neutrality is revoked: ISPs may attack businesses, they may open doors to selling private data, and they may force both parties into paying tiered royalties.

means it shouldn’t have to pay for their massive level of internet traffic (Nocera). Which was partly true, at this time there were no laws in place like there are now, things operated on a good faith basis. The ISPs were within their rights at the time to do this, it was just morally and legally a little ambiguous.

The emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web brought upon a medium of communication with a range of opportunities for the world. However, this medium is, in due course, subject to the control of a few major companies. The enigma of information flow is the central concern of net neutrality. Consumers, competition and network owners would benefit directly from the regulation of network neutrality because it would provide a positive impact to those parties as well as provide equality.