Issue Brief On Net Neutrality

The second video “Moyers & Company: Is Net Neutrality Dead?” is about a debate regarding net neutrality, which is the right to communicate freely online, keeping the major internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast from increasing costs for costumers to not slow down or block any content they want to use, also called price discrimination, a service offered at different prices by the same provider in different markets. As there are only few internet providers, barriers are set by limiting the area where some of them are allowed to supply their services to, limiting competition and increasing costs for consumers.

Many individuals still believe in the progressive ideals that the Internet was founded upon, and want to see that it continues to be a place for innovation, where information is free and available. They don’t want large corporations having very strict control over that. Only a few days ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill in an attempt to limit the FCC’s authority on net neutrality. The debate on net neutrality is far from over, and no one knows how the Internet will operate a decade from now. One thing is clear, however: the American people have a huge influence on what will ultimately happen, so if they want to maintain the privacy and freedom that they desire, they need to continue to make their voices

But what exactly is Net neutrality? Net neutrality means cable companies such as Time Warner Cable and Verizon cannot charge more for faster internet speeds. Which means everybody who uses the internet will have the same speed. Hence the word neutrality. Verizon communication sued the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) saying that they do not have jurisdiction over that subject and limiting speeds is a violation of the First Amendment. "The FCC says Net neutrality rules are designed to preserve the internet as an open platform enabling consumer Choice, freedom of expression, and end-user control, competition, and the freedom to innovate without permission." This case went to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. The courts ruled in favor of a Verizon. The reasoning for the decision is that “FCC has no authority to apply common-carrier obligation like non-discrimination and no-blocking rules to broadband providers.” I agree with this decision. The reason is that the internet should not be like electricity. If you plug your phone into the wall to charge. It's going to have the same amount of current as someone else charging their phone. But what happens if I want to charge my phone faster? I can’t because electricity is neutral. But when I go on the internet and I see it is slow. What happens if I want to make it faster? With Net neutrality I could not make it faster. I want the option to make my internet faster. And what happens to large corporations where internet speed is essential to stay in business? The fact of the matter is that the FCC does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Net neutrality should never be passed. It will only hurt the consumer. In addition, the FCC approved of a $9.25 monthly charge to help low-income families connect to the internet. Three out of the five Commissioners voted for the subsidy plan. This approval is one part of the reform of the fund

There are developmental issues that surround Title 2 and the internet. Does a regulated system generated what is necessary to stimulate the economy and the competition? The research that was released by the FCC and the Electronic Frontier Society has provided great insight into the issue. Net Neutrality is a trident of an issue; it cannot be fully encompassed by one of the following disciplines. Economics, Technological and Political science are the main three that encompass what Net neutrality has become. Technology is the medium that created this problem, however our economy is built on to it. We are in the New Economic Era and we need regulatory oversight. The consumer and innovators are at odds with internet service providers; there has to be middle ground to solving the issue.

Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet Service provider’s should treat all content on the internet equally. Most people in the United States of America want to keep net neutrality. However, the Federal Communications Commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to stop net neutrality, so many people are protesting to keep net neutrality. Net neutrality promotes innovation and allows freedom, but is seen as unnecessary by the Federal Communications Commission.

Content and internet service providers spoke out as well, increasing the need for some kind of legislation. Various forms of the original guiding principles were proposed as net neutrality legislation; however none of them were passed. Due to the growth of the debate and increasing numbers of complaints, the FCC has proposed their latest set of guidelines called, “preserving the open internet”, to be voted on as net neutrality legislation. Content providers such as Amazon.com, Disney, Facebook, eBay, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo, and voice over internet protocol company’s like Vonage and Skype, as well as educational or public interest groups such as Educause, Internet2, ACE, Regional Optical Networks, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are all in favor of passing the “preserving the open internet” legislation. Then there are those against “preserving the open internet” legislation such as telecommunications and cable companies like AT&T, BellSouth, Verizon, Cablevision, Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Charter Communications, and hardware manufacturers such as Cisco, Nortel, and VeriSign (Greenfield, 2006).

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

“Net neutrality shackles the internet with rules and regulations designed for the bygone era of the black rotary phone rules that made sense in 1934 but not today”. This is a quote from Brian Paul who is a reporter from “The Mercury News” which is based in San Jose, California. Net Neutrality is the idea that all internet service providers should treat all lawful internet content equally and it is restricting the dynamic and ever-changing landscape of modern computing. Although, on the other side of the argument many people like Tim Berners-Lee who is known to be the creator of the world wide web say “Neutral networks are critical to ensuring fair, open competition in the content market and driving America's growth in the digital era”. It is

Net neutrality is a principle that has defended American citizens from internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon from corrupting individuals internet access. For instance, the principle prevents the speeding up, slowing down or the blockage of any content in applications or websites and charging customers extra fees for high-speed internet. However, that principle is currently being discussed by the F.C.C. whether to repeal Net Neutrality or continue with the principle. The F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai proposed the idea and while big internet services such as the ones mentioned agree with the removal of net neutrality since it will give them more leverage over the income they will receive. Yet, others such as Google, Facebook and Amazon

As written in the article, “Net Neutrality” by publicknowledge.org, net neutrality is “the principle that individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet service providers discriminating against specific online services or websites.” Net neutrality (also known as network neutrality, Internet neutrality and net equality) has two opposing views on whether or not it should be required by law. On one side, there are people that support net neutrality because they are concerned that their internet providers would block Internet applications and content (such as services, websites and protocols) and even go as far as blocking competitors. While on the other side, the people against

The problem is without net neutrality, the (Internet Service Provider) ISP such as BT or comcast could influence what we see and how quickly we see it. In order to watch youtube, browse facebook or read the news, we need an ISP to connect us to that content. Net neutrality demands that ISPs should treat all web traffic the same. If netflix makes an arrangement with an ISP could block netflix's competitors from reaching customers. Many ISPs have started their own streaming services. They could favour their own content and block competitors out completely. ISP argue that, if there was less regulation and they were able to charge a premium for faster service, they could reinvest the money in better infrastructure. Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) vote to lift restrictions that require internet service providers to treat all legal internet traffic equally in terms of

Federal Communications Commission which ruled that the FCC did not have the jurisdiction to regulate broadband companies while they are defined under Title I (Cano 712). This urged people to have the FCC reclassify ISPs under Title II which came in the form of the Open Internet Order. This is because the court directly stated that for the FCC to strictly enforce net neutrality, ISPs had to be common carriers. The people for net neutrality believe that having them classified under Title I, does not provide enough protections for consumers because the FTC only prevents practices that stifle competition and not ones that are the concern of net

It’s the biggest fight of the year Muhammad Ali vs Mike Tyson. Two of the best heavy weight boxers of all time are preparing to go head to head in the ring. Which one do you choose? The one with the lightning fast speed or the one with heavy jabs. Now imagine your internet service providers going toe to toe. Comcast vs Time Warner cable. When you consider the amount of subscribers each of them has numbers show that Comcast 22.3 million which is twice the amount of consumers as Time Warner coming in at just 12 million.

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

net neutrality. The year prior to this, net neutrality was almost kissed goodbye; The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had to decide between allowing ISPs to offer fast or slow lanes for internet access or classifying broadband as a telecommunication service therefor making it a utility. Now in the year 2017, companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T want to end net neutrality. In May of 2017 the FCC allowed Trump's current FCC chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to move forward, and as a result, there were major public outcries.Within days there were thousands of calls and emails made to Congress regarding the issue, the power and freedom of the internet were at stake. The public did not stop there of course, on July 12th of 2017 an event called “Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality” came into effect. Over 50,000 websites, major companies,