Essay On Net Neutrality

Imagine getting online, only to find out that you can 't access your favorite website. It could be Instagram, Tumblr, or even Youtube, a website for uploading videos. After getting off the phone with your internet provider, they tell you that you need to pay to access your favorite website. Internet providers want it to be set up that way. Their has been an ongoing debate about net neutrality between the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and internet providers. Net neutrality is fighting again internet providers blocking content.

Berners-Lee questions whether America “[wants] a web where cable companies determine winners and losers online?” and cable companies are able to “decide which opinions we read”. To an extreme level, cable companies would be able to determine “which creative ideas succeed” (Berners-Lee 2). This opposes the freedom that American citizens strive for. It puts a limits the equal opportunity that so Americans find so important. Furthermore, “the change would allow internet-service providers to throttle some online traffic and allow companies to pay extra for faster delivery of their content” (Martinez & Hoisington). Without net neutrality, internet-service providers would be able to smother small or upcoming businesses by limiting their audience. However, the impact of the repeal of net neutrality does not stop here. The repeal of net neutrality “also eliminates several other consumer protections, such as a requirement that ISPs be more transparent with customers about hidden fees and the consequences of exceeding data caps” (Brodkin 1). Repealing net neutrality would deregulate internet-service providers, allowing them to have far too much control over their

Furthermore, without net neutrality, “Comcast has the potential to slow up or speed down certain internet content, it could slow down ABC content while boosting the speed of NBC content” (“The Case for Net Neutrality”). In the absence of net neutrality, big companies can control the internet speeds based on bias. Seeing as companies such as Comcast have the ability to speed up or slow down specific content without net neutrality, the general public is not receiving equal access to all content. Under net neutrality, major companies controlling Internet speeds would be forbidden, ensuring the equal access the general public currently receives would be protected. To add on, the debate on net neutrality will determine if the general public will be victims to ISPs unfair and dangerous regulations. “The [situation] outcomes appear to give ISPs dangerous and unfair control over the internet, especially considering the role of the internet in [the general public’s] daily lives” (“The Case for Net Neutrality”). Lacking net neutrality, ISPs can control the Internet in unfair ways, greatly impacting the general public’s

I am Aric See and I am a senior in the Weidner School of Inquiry at Plymouth High School in Plymouth Indiana. Net Neutrality is a very important issue facing the United States, with many Republican members of Congress opposing the FCC’s Open Internet Order and the reclassifying of broadband to Telecommunication Services from Information Services. The members of the GOP who are completely against the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) reclassification, and attempts to keep the internet free, give many reasons that are simply not true, such as the FCC’s regulations will destroy the free nature of the internet. Because of the attempts by Congressmen with the GOP to fight the regulations, many Americans, especially small business owners that use the web as a base, feel that their equality and freedoms on the internet will be

Back in 2006, Aaron Weiss, a technology writer and web developer, noted that, “The real fight over network neutrality isn’t between the telecoms and their end users—it’s with the major content providers, who now hold the largest bankrolls” (Weiss 25). Today, that is truer than ever. Content providers that have become immensely popular over the last decade, like Netflix and Google, want immunity from bandwidth restrictions and fees, because users want fast accessibility to these sites. The idea of no bandwidth restrictions is appealing to them because when they “can charge consumers directly, the only regulation that results in a change in their payoffs is strong net neutrality. Thus, moving from any other regime to strong net neutrality, increases the profits of the content provider that attracts consumer attention…By contrast, in the absence of strong net neutrality, that marginal surplus is appropriated by the ISP” (Gans

[1] The concept of net neutrality is that all data on the internet must be treated equally. So, this means that internet service providers cannot use deep packet inspection [2] (which is reading information contained in a packet to detect signs of unwanted or “unsavory” data) or any other means to discriminate against specific types of data or content they don’t necessarily agree with. One important aspect of the argument is how such a system would affect minority/low-income groups. I believe that net neutrality is an overall benefit to such communities.

As previously stated, net neutrality is a complex subject and it has many layers. One issue of major of concern is that of “fast lanes” and the establishment of net neutrality would prevent ISPs from forming these types of connections. Simplified, a fast lane is line of service that provides faster upload and download speeds. A fast lane would allow ISPs to charge companies such as Netflix, Skype, PlayStation Plus, and other streaming services for faster connections that would allow consumers to access the services easier and faster. Proponents of net neutrality worry that the extra expenses for fast lanes could become a formidable challenge for startups and small business owners. Large corporations typically

Since net neutrality forces Internet Service Providers to treat all content equally, people can have equal opportunity on the internet. Blocking, throttling, and slowing websites is restricted with net neutrality, so everybody gets to have equal competition on the internet. Without net neutrality Internet Service Providers would have the ability to throttle companies that support them, and block competitor companies and their services. This would start monopolies that restrict smaller companies from selling products and services. People also have suspicions that Internet Service Providers will start to make people pay microtransactions to have access to each individual site or group of sites on the internet. Because net neutrality evens the playing field for all users of the internet, net neutrality promotes

With an internet that does not practice net neutrality, the internet service providers can swindle other’s websites by throttling people’s connection to them unless they pay a premium price. People are more likely to go to the website that takes one second to load, not twenty. This problem would be incredibly relevant for streaming websites such as YouTube and Netflix. Nobody wants to wait what seems like an hour for a single

Net-neutrality became a big topic of debate in the United States last year. Net-neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISP’s) should be giving access to all web traffic equally, without blocking access or favouring certain websites. In the first quarter of 2014, the FCC began to propose rules that would allow ISP’s to have control over their consumers access, basically going against net-neutrality. After being ruled out, ISP’s pleaded for the court to reappeal the case, which ended up ruling in favour of the rules by the FCC. This issue is interesting to look at for the ways in which the media reports it, because the majority of people are for equally accessed web traffic, but the media needs

Have you ever used the internet? almost everyone is affected by the internet everyday. Net neutrality(net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.) is being threatened by the FCC (federal communications commision) and some ISPs (internet service providers) like AT&T. People need to protect net neutrality because without it ISPs can charge you more, net neutrality keeps things fair, ISPs could deny access to websites and services.

After reviewing the videos about net neutrality, and the pros and cons on the subject, I am a supporter of net neutrality and against priority internet access. The meaning behind net neutrality is essentially that no bit of information should be prioritized over another bit of information. The first video’s analogy was comparing the big internet broadband companies, such as Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, as big trucks dominating over the other smaller internet sites which would be the smaller cars on the highway. Now since the FCC’s new rule, those big companies will not be able to dominate the speeds of internet because they paid more money. I believe that the internet does not need broadband companies fighting over who is going to control

Net Neutrality is essential to our everyday lives, and it is perilously close to being repealed on December 14th by the FCC; but if more people take a stand in support of Net Neutrality, we can preserve the free internet. Net Neutrality needs to be saved because it protects free speech, free trade of information and services, and the privacy of our data. This is an issue that concerns all citizens regardless of political affiliation, but lawmakers have made it a fight between the two parties. Most people did not care about Net Neutrality or even know what it is until fairly recently, but recent events regarding it's likely repeal have turned the public’s attention towards it.

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

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.