Net Neutrality: An Analysis

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

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,

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

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

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

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.

preserves the free speech of the Internet. This will allow the ISP’s to compete without

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Network Neutrality, also known as Net Neutrality, is defined as “the principle that Internet providers (‘broadband providers’) should allow access to all content and applications equally, irrespective of what the source of the content is” (Cano, 2016, p. 1). Net Neutrality works to keep an open Internet, which is characterized by three things. The first characteristic is there are no gatekeepers. This means no one can stop someone else from making something. The second characteristic is “the technology supporting the flow of traffic would be indifferent to the ‘substance, functionality, and content of that traffic’” (Cano, 2016, p. 21). The final characteristic of an open Internet is the network is available to anyone and anyone can contribute to the infrastructure. Net Neutrality cannot be discussed without also mentioning the three terms which describe all parties involved in the Internet: edge providers, end users, and broadband providers. An edge provider is defined as “a person or organization that provides or creates ‘content, services, and applications over the Internet’; this includes providers

based ISP Sonic in 2015, and he said, "...Small ISPs will suffer when you have failed competitive market, with just one or two choices, you have an effective monopoly." They may have a point in that smaller ISPs have a hard time with the current net neutrality in place, but at the end of the day, there is more option for smaller ISPs to become more competitive in the markets, rather than destroying the open internet just for single profits. Net neutrality is not only a simple regulation but a vital building block of keeping the internet free and from big companies trying to cornering consumer by slowing speed to pay for services that are free in the first place.