Net Neutrality: An Analysis

Any consumer should have the right to use the internet however they may please without their internet service provider charging premium to view certain portions of the internet or throttling their bandwidth. But this is irrelevant to you and many congressmen and senators as you have been given thousands upon thousands of dollars from the internet service providers

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,

Verizon v FCC(2014) in this case the Appeals Court of D.C ruled that the Federal Communication Commission could NOT regulate internet service providers as “common carriers” and in fact that these companies could favor some content over other content with higher speeds. I will argue how unconstitutional and “unfair” this ruling due to the fact that some content providers thrives off of the internet solely.

Facts: The FCC, respondent, established The Open Internet Order in 2010, which put into place new rules regarding network neutrality. The order made it so broadband service providers had to be transparent with consumers, and could not practice anti-blocking, or discrimination with their services. The first order details that providers must “publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performances, and commercial terms of [their] broadband Internet access.” The second order prohibits “block[ing] lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management,” “applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable

To encapsulate thursdays decision; The FCC decided that ISPs(internet service providers), needed not, have rules keeping them from blocking or changing the speed of online content, or prioritizing their providers internet content. The FCC made this move to veer away from the act of regulating the internet, according to CNN “In the absence of a firm ban on these actions, providers will be required to publicly disclose any instance of blocking, throttling or paid prioritization. It will then be evaluated based on whether or not the activity is anti-competitive.”(Fiegerman, 2017). The Federal Communications Commission also decided to move internet protection issues to The Federal Trade Commission.

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

Federal Communications Commission, otherwise known as the FCC, voted two-to-one in May of 2017, to begin the tearing down of the net neutrality law (Rushe), that which protected individuals from companies that purposefully slowed down service lanes so as to regulate what was being broadcasted across computers. Chief internet official Ajit Pai at the FCC stated that he believed that the dismantling of the net neutrality laws could pave the way for a more competitive marketplace, that which would “lift ‘heavy-handed’ internet regulations that overly restricted internet providers” (White). The repealing of net neutrality seems to mainly garner approval from big companies, such as Verizon, and more recently, Comcast, companies that would do well by the repealing of such a law. With net neutrality gone companies such as those listed above would be able to, legally, regulate and control what people saw on the internet by slowing down or speeding up lanes depending on the affiliation the company has with that specific website (Finley). However, even with Title II in effect, some companies have found a way to circumvent those rules in order to ‘play favorites’ as it were. For instance, when AT&T customers access the Direct TV’s streaming service they may find that the data extrapolated from the service used did not count towards their current data limit’s (Finley). It is also believed that with no regulations in place regarding net neutrality, companies have the potential of becoming dictators and blocking

The FCC’s move will allow companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to charge internet companies for speedier access to consumers and to block outside services they don’t like. The change also axes a host of consumer protections, including privacy requirements and rules barring unfair practices that gave consumers an avenue to pursue complaints about price gouging.

Network Neutrality as defined by a University of California student is, “a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks.”(Lin, 1) Put into layman terms, it is the act of ISPs to not provide a

Network Neutrality is a controversial topic that speaks about free, and open internet. Net Neutrality enables access and transparency of internet offerings and free access to services to applications, and content. Some I.S.P. companies and internet sites want to gain profit for the information they release. However, the other side of the issue focuses on title one and two of the communications act of 1994, this prohibits I.S.P. companies from showing certain websites and not at an equal speed, while having to pay for the access to information(Net Neutrality). This whole issue started in 1996, when The Telecommunications Act of 1996 inverted the original Telecommunications Act, this new act allowed for anyone to enter the communications business

Before this assignment I had no idea what net neutrality was, I’m embarrassed to write that confession. “Net Neutrality is the assurance that access to the Web and its content will not be blocked, slowed down, or sped up depending on where that access is based or who owns the access point(s)” (Boswell). This to me means that the FCC (Federal Communications Commissions) want the internet to be open to all traffic, or online customers. They don’t want companies to be able to block or charge premium rates for the use of service. This allows all data to be equal and everyone is on the same “fast lane” of the road, sort of speck.

Many people don’t approve of government regulation of anything, if these ISPs are allowed to create monopolies of complete control without any restrictions, it will only hurt the consumer. It is shown that even though ISPs have a few points in their motive behind abolishing net neutrality, the negative impacts on consumers and small businesses far outnumber the claims made by network providers. Internet users both nationally and globally must continue to be advocates for apposing the motives behind ISPs and preventing them from limiting educational access for students, promoting unfair business advantages, and supporting censorship. Millions of people have pushed the FCC to protect real Net Neutrality, and hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions and contacted their local representative to prevent the loss of net neutrality. Internet service providers are powerful and vicious and they won’t back down. Neither can consumers and small businesses. The vitality of the voices on the Internet is vital to protect and promote net neutrality. If the protest against the FCC ruling succeeds, the open Internet will continue to thrive as a space shared and shaped by its billions of users

The prioritization of certain websites with established business models would give them a significant advantage with the ability to forestall competitor in the same market that cannot pay the ISPs to carry their traffic in the same way. Everyone who is impacted by this should know the truth and what this means to them, which would be more than 86% of the people in the United States, since that is the percent of Internet users in the U.S. according to the United States Internet Users (2014) live stats page. Network neutrality is nothing new is something that has been established for a while, but just recently has been threaten by ISPs due to a set of rulings by courts and the inability of FCC to do something about it. The internet is a unique place where everyone, no matter what, is treated equally and there is no need to destroy the fundamental thing that made the internet such a revolutionary

If there is no net neutrality, ISPs will have the power to mold internet traffic according to their preferences so that they can derive extra benefit from it. For example, several Internet service providers believe that they should be allowed to charge extra from companies like YouTube and Netflix because these services consume more bandwidth in comparison to a normal website. Basically, these ISPs want a share in the earning that YouTube or Netflix make

Skeptics of net neutrality can often contend with those who support net neutrality by drawing comparisons with the Cable Act of 1992. The act was meant to protect the consumers by forcing cable companies to carry most local broadcast channels and prohibited them from charging local broadcasters to carry their own signal. One such argument came from Thomas W. Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University; he stated that the act’s inability to maintain the number of customers, let alone increase raises the question of the real effects of “consumer protection” laws despite its initial intentions. Hazlett likens net neutrality by insisting that it’s likely to repeat the same consequences, which stifle progress and profit.