Internet Neutrality

With network neutrality as such a heavily debated and controversial topic, there exists a large number of literature and viewpoints on the topic. This paper discusses the viewpoints brought up within an article authored by two people. The article acts as a debate between the authors, containing points and counter points, and this paper goes over the main ideas and conclusions brought up within the article, while acting as a good overview for the reader to start their search for their own personal conclusions.

With over a billion users the internet is one of the most used services in the world. However, this vast idea, that gives one so much freedom, is slowly loosing its value. The article "Point/Counterpoint: Network Neutrality Nuances” by Barbara van Schewick is a brilliant writing with minor flaws to explain this issue. While, Schewick introduces the idea of Network Neutrality well and keeps the flow of the article consistent, she uses too many unnecessary examples to portray a point.

The world has become more and more dependent on the internet and the wide berth of information and services to which we now have access. Libraries, educational organizations (schools, universities, non-profits), and students have embraced the “information highway” and have also grown to depend on internet access. Neutrality proponents contend that the absence of neutrality could give rise to a situation where priority is given to entertainment’s high-speed internet over educational content (Choi & Kim, 2010). It is easy to imagine that companies like Netflix, Facbook, and other companies would have a greater ability to utilize fast lanes than those entities that focus on academia. Libraries and educational organizations would be at a disadvantage because their traffic would have a lower priority (Jackson, 2014).

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.

This essay Net Neutrality is available for you on Essays24.com! Search Term Papers, College Essay Examples and Free Essays on Essays24.com - full papers database.

Net neutrality is becoming a rising topic that could take the large community of internet users by storm. Net neutrality according to Dictionary.com is: "The principle that basic Internet protocols should be non-discriminatory." This definition by itself is very bland and leaves out many important details. I agree whole-heartedly with this idea of a truly open internet. Nobody questioned the free internet until on January 14th, 2014, a federal court of appeals opposed the Federal Communications Commission or F.C.C's "Open Internet Order." This allowed for large internet companies, such as AT&T or Comcast to discriminate against content displayed on the internet. This change could end up costing users a lot more out of their

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

In the late 2010, U.S. Federal Communication commission imposed "network neutrality" regulations on broadband access providers, both wired and wireless. Networks cannot block subscribers' use of certain devices, applications, or services, or unreasonably discriminate, offering superior access for some services over others. The commission argues that such rules are necessary, as the internet was designed to bar "gatekeepers". Networks routinely manage traffic and often bundle content with data transport precisely because such coordination produces superior services. A truly "open internet" allows consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs to choose among many models, discovering effeciencies. the FCC mistakes the benefits

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.

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.

At the point where Net Neutrality is upheld, as it is at this moment, all network access suppliers must enable equal access to applications and content, paying little respect to the source. If it were not authorized, your internet service provider could make it harder for you to access parts of the internet at its own preference. Vast web organizations could support their own business advantages without the guarantee of net neutrality, but for the time being, eliminating Net Neutrality could influence everything from web speed to the general access to the internet.

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

Over 280 million people could have something really unique changed from their lives and not even be aware of it (United States Internet Users, n.d.). Internet users in the United States are faced with a problem that could change the Internet as they know it. As Eric Schmidt (2006) CEO of Google puts it “Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight." This is because Net neutrality is at risk from Internet service providers who want the ability to charge for what they call a “fast lane” on the Internet and the FCC is making it possible for this to happen. Net neutrality is the principle which states that no bit of information should be prioritized over another and that Internet service providers, or ISPs, are to be completely detached from what information is

In just the past few decades, the internet has grown from a new technology, into a staple resource for billions. When anything grows from a service to a necessity, important decisions have to be made about regulating and limiting the control any given party has over them or risk abuse of power. When it comes to the internet, net neutrality is at the forefront of these regulations. Net neutrality, is the idea that access to the internet should be unrestricted and free; According to Emily Hong and Sarah Morris “In the simplest of terms: the FCC rules [on net neutrality] mean no fast and slow lanes on the internet, no blocking of content, and no provider throttling your streaming

In an article by The White House, “Simply put: no service should be stuck in a ‘slow lane’ because it does not pay a fee” (The White House). In simpler terms, without network neutrality, good services couldn’t deliver quick service to their customers, just because network providers won’t let them without paying a fee. An article by Rey Lin says “This principle implies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful when it is less focused on a particular audience and instead attentive to multiple users” . This explains that all types of services and media should be embraced on the internet, and not just those that network owners agree with, or are paid to agree with. “we cannot allow Internet service providers (ISP’s) to restrict best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas” (The White House). I believe this quote sums it up perfectly, allowing ISP’s to decide which services are successful and not successful is placing power in their hands that should be in the hands of the consumers using the services. Allowing ISP’s to decide which services are successful on the internet would ultimately hurt the consumer by not allowing them to decide which services they want to