Who owns the internet? The common opinion is that the web is a free and equal source for all its’ users, belonging to no one and everyone at the same time, however the increasing monopolization of content producers and methods of access has become a major cause for concern. As a unified, single entity, the Internet does not belong to any single person or organization, but the quality and levels of access available are dependent on thousands of corporate groups and impact every internet user. While once seen as an equalizing field, discussions of web fast lanes, private platforms, and pay-for-play access have turned the once obviously neutral Internet into a highly contested structure. Net neutrality is a step forward towards ensuring a future …show more content…
“The preferential leveraging of certain websites by telos and ISPs inherently implies reduced access to others,” Panda explains, “…this could lead to blocking others, either fully or, with choked access…” ISPs are the gateway through which all access must pass. Millions of web pages, platforms, app, services, with any and all types of information and resources available. There are small, niche sites (Reddit forums on Twilight Zone special features) to large, global content (the DOW summary) available at all hours of the day, and while the educational value of each of these would undoubtedly vary from person to person, access to both of these does not. Comparatively, in a world without net neutrality equalized education is constantly at risk depending on their whims of the ISP. Attempting to access event coverage on FOX news could be slowed or blocked completely if Comcast is your internet service provider. This not only leads to biased or even misinformation, but further monetizes the very nature of education. Paid prioritization, where those with the most financial resources can speed up access to their content, would hurt public and non-profit content providers, such as libraries, that cannot afford a fast lane for research and archival collections (Long). Additionally, because content providers that pay more for fast lanes could pass extra charges on to consumers for access to organizations that have not paid for such lanes, leading libraries and schools to end up paying more for commercial content while still losing their consumer base. ISPs are businesses at their core and thus have financial incentives to favor their own content over others, but once customers pay for their internet access, they should have the rights to choose the content they access. When someone purchases a car, they determine the route and
The internet is a resource with ever expanding content and applications for everyone to use however, net neutrality rules on the free use of internet remains a debated topic. The “Point/Counterpoint: Network Neutrality Nuances” presents Barbara van Schewick’s supportive argument on the applications of net neutrality rules, and the consequences of failing to do so. Schewick’s engaging justifications are well researched with arguments containing significant amounts of examples, strong and simplistic diction to reach her audience, and clean and smooth transitions to move between ideas.
It is often regarded as the notion that, the broadband service provider should charge customers only for Internet access without any form of discrimination or favoritism on content viewed by end-users from their respective content providers. The concept of “Net Neutrality” is intended to regulate price and promote competition. Simply put, it is a premised on the principle that all Internet traffic must be treated equally without bias. “Opponents of the Net neutrality on the other hand, see bandwidth as a private resource, one that is supplied most efficiently if exclusive owners take responsibility for managing and conserving it, and are able to optimize its value by exerting control over the content and application it conveys” (Yoo,
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
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.
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
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
In this report you will find information about Net Neutrality. I want to inform you on how net neutrality may affect you and in what ways. Net Neutrality is an open and free way of internet. All information is shared without discrimination of the content and everything is shared equally. The purpose is to make you aware of Net Neutrality and the impact is would have on the internet with or without. Awareness about net neutrality is a must because regardless of your stance after being informed it could affect the way you use and view content on the internet. The problem can start being solved by first making more people aware of Net Neutrality and its effects on the internet. Over one- third of the entire world’s population uses the internet daily to complete and exchange various things. These users can be affected by net neutrality. In conclusion net neutrality affects a lot of people and is why the internet is open and free. I do not think this should change.
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
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