Essay On Net Neutrality

The data should be provided to users without any traffic imposed by the internet service providers. ISP’s should not stop any services or decrease speed of any applications/ sources of the companies who have connections with their competitors and provide the services of companies who have deals with them with high speed. They should treat all the data equally and transmit all the data to the users freely without any complications. There are also regulations imposed by FCC in order to take care of this net neutrality.

A. Net neutrality is an FCC (Federal Communications Commission) regulation that is the internet's guiding principle.

Paul Anderson Mrs. Decker English IV 4 March 2018 Net Neutrality Internet is a new and constantly changing environment. In such a growing place, there needs to be regulations.

The fight for net neutrality has begun again with the FCC attempting to repeal the net neutrality act protected under Title Two. what exactly does that mean? Net neutrality is where an internet user has total unrestricted access to all internet content, and where big companies, such as Verizon or Comcast, are legally unable to control or regulate what someone can access. Furthermore, they cannot restrict access to specific content simply due to the fact that they disagree with the message that is being sent. This has been an ongoing battle, with one side voting against net neutrality, as they believe it to be exactly what everyone needs and the other seeing it as a breach of their right to freedom of speech.

What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is when an internet service provider can block us from being able to use whatever application, web site, and products we may desire to use unless we basically pay for them, therefore limiting our access to whatever we desire.

[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.

Most aspects of net neutrality can be achieved without forced regulations. They say Internet Service Providers wouldn’t want to alter internet content access and speeds anyway. We should trust our Internet Service Providers. Internet Service Providers are afraid to alter the internet because they would quickly lose many of their customers. They say net neutrality will disincentivize companies in low income areas. We need more focus on broadband expansion instead of regulation of companies; some companies take more bandwidth than others, so having net neutrality overloads bandwidth on smaller companies that don’t need as much. Also, authority should be restored to the Federal Trade Commission. Internet speeds become overall slower by spreading out bandwidth. The Federal Communications Commission has multiple reasons for thinking that net neutrality is unnecessary.

By choosing net neutrality, we continue to protect our most unalienable right, the 1st Amendment. If we don’t protect our 1st Amendment here it could set a precedence were eventually we lose all of our first amendment rights.

The definition of 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 restricting access to certain products or websites. If this principle were to be repealed, the government will decide what is put on the internet and you would have to pay to access some websites or apps, or internet providers might just block access to particular apps. I agree with the fight to defend net neutrality because the internet is an important source of information. If net neutrality were to be repealed, we would have limited access to information. This article is important enough to share in the news because the news websites could be blocked because of the things that they report on. For example, someone with a higher authority may want a news network blocked by the news they report. I believe this is textbook worthy because this is a problem that could, in a way, affect the First Amendment such as freedom of speech and freedom of the

"Net Neutrality The internet is becoming increasingly more and more prevalent in the everyday lives of U.S. citizens. Citizens who should have access to what they want to see, at speeds that should not be compromised because a company does not favor a certain website. Therefore, the United States government has a large duty to monitor internet content so the public can equally access the internet no matter the topic or issue. Net neutrality needs to be enforced by the government.

With the thought of American citizens being in control of their lives still in mind, it seems that the government is truly trying to tell its citizens how to live, since the repeal of internet neutrality would affect the free market system in negative ways; as a result, people’s financial lives would also be affected in negative ways. For example, according to page 15 of Alan Joch’s article, “Debating Net Neutrality,” internet service providers could do something similar as companies like Google in which they can charge advertisers to show certain results when a person looks up something similar to their focus. If net neutrality does come to an end, then situations like that will indeed happen. Therefore, net neutrality needs to be maintained because those situations would disrupt the economic system and the supposed fairness that is guaranteed by it. It would allow for the wealthier companies to further present their services and leave the smaller competitors in the dark. And, because internet neutrality’s repeal would allow internet providers and the government to essentially spy on everyone, “Various types of analytical applications could give broadband providers an efficient way to slice and dice their customers’ usage data, and thus gives ISPs an opportunity to argue that they’re able to place ads as precisely tuned to individual users’ interests as those inserted by search companies” (Joch 15). That statement further proves as to why ending net neutrality is a bad idea. It shows that not only will the government and the wealthy business people that run the internet know what everyone is doing, but it also shows how they would practically control the economy by choosing whether they want to show certain business’s ads or not. And, what is even worse is that they will have control of what is seen, and they can claim that the results they show are unique to the person and what they have looked up, which essentially leaves smaller competitors without hope. Now, according to Timothy J. Tardiff, in his article, “NET NEUTRALITY: ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF MARKET DEVELOPMENTS,” the end of internet neutrality would be a positive thing because people would have the option to pay for better options or services when it

One of the greatest factors threatening the Internet today is the attempt to dismantle net neutrality. Net neutrality is the idea of an open Internet, one on which people can freely communicate online; some Internet service providers, however, want the right to block or discriminate against any applications or content from which said companies gain no profit. If net neutrality is destroyed, then private corporations have free reign in throttling the sharing of information and of services for their consumers. This would cause private corporations to hold all the business, and we would all become consumers, simply taking what the corporations provide. Not only would this be an assault on the consumer’s right to choose, but this would completely

Yet at the same time, these two sets of companies compete for customers, creating a glaring conflict of interest. Whilst these issues seemed to be resolved by the middle of the twentieth century, the advent of the internet introduced a whole new set of problems. The term net neutrality, first coined by Tim Wu, Professor of the Columbia University Law School in 2003, came to represent a question that had long been perceived as being of relatively little concern – is unfettered access to the internet a right, or a privilege? (Cheng and Bandyopadhay 2011: 60) (Greenstein 2007: 61, 85) The debate around internet regulation and net neutrality first gained traction in 2002, when the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) controversially ruled that broadband internet was to be classed as an information service rather as a telecommunications service, and thus made it exempt from a considerable range of content and conduct regulations that it would otherwise have been subject to. For those Americans, as exemplified by organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who saw the internet as a space of uninhibited free expression that needed to be protected from the influence of corporate meddling, this decision was very frustrating. As promoted by Wu and others, net neutrality came to represent the belief that ‘internet data packets should move nondiscriminatorily’ – that is, the data (‘packets’ essentially being a technical

Throughout the last decade, the idea of Net Neutrality has been the topic of many debates. Net Neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers should not be allowed to block their users from any content regardless of its source. The Debate is still continuing in 2017 with the F.C.C planning to repeal Net Neutrality and allow internet providers to completely regulate what their users can see and charge the users extra for “luxuries” such as social media, messaging, email, and music. There are two sides of this argument, one side believes that Net Neutrality should be taken away, while others believe that it is unfair for the Internet providers to have the right to take away the access to any content. Internet providers should not be allowed to control what content one can view when surfing the internet.

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.