Net Neutrality Case Study

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

Throughout the span of 2008-2010, another net neutrality bill was introduced in congress regarding Comcast blocking files but, Comcast sued the FCC saying that the FCC has no authority over their internet service. . The FCC attempted to apply a cease and desist order against Comcast but eventually they canceled it. The outcome of this dispute created an Open Internet Order by Democrat Julius Genachowski (Reardon, 2015). This is very significant because this is what made the net neutrality rules official in the FCC regulation. This order explains that people can access content to the Internet without experiencing blocking or slowing down. In addition, broadband providers have to be clear about their management networks and practices.

On December 14th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote to replace current rules enforcing net neutrality. Nothing short of an extinction-level event will prevent it. But before we’re resigned to fate, know that while the battle for net neutrality at the FCC may have been lost, the war isn’t even close to being over which sounds kinda scary. Really, the net neutrality fight is simply migrating to a different theater, namely, The US Courts of Appeals. And excluding the possibility of a Supreme Court challenge, the outcome could very well drag on for another year and a half or more.

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

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 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.

On 23 April 2014, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reported to be considering a new rule that will permit Internet service providers to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier position on net neutrality. Municipal broadband could provide a net neutral environment, according to Professor Susan Crawford, a legal and technology

Tim Berners-Lee said “Freedom of connection with any application to any party is the fundamental social basis of the internet. And now, is the basis of the society built on the internet.” Net Neutrality has been around since the beginning of internet. It is the reason the internet is open and free for anyone to use without, blocking, degradation, and discrimination. It has been the main driving force for up and coming artists, new small businesses, and people with fresh and great ideas. It has made the internet effortless and accessible without charging outrageous fees for a faster lane or having to ask for permission to use visuals, video, or audio. It

Back in February 2015, there was a debate over what the new set of rules should be for net neutrality and how they should be established and enforced. The debate ended in favor of continuing the use of the rules set back in 2010. Those rules were proposed by Tim Wheeler who is the chairman for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Federal Communications Commission or FCC is “an independent group of the United States government which is overseen by Congress that regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories” (FCC). Wheeler’s proposal for the continuation of net neutrality was accepted. In the future, Wheeler said his thought process about the subject had changed and that “the rules didn’t go far enough to preserve true net neutrality” (Reardon). The rules stated that ISPs cannot block users from accessing legal content. ISPs cannot throttle bandwidth or slow down the speed of legal Internet traffic created by their customers. They cannot offer paid prioritization. That means they are prohibited from prioritizing some traffic within their network over other traffic. This rule eliminates the potential for fast lanes. ISPs must follow the Open Internet standard which means users are allowed to go to

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

Open and equal internet services benefit all social classes by eliminating premium access and giving everyone the same internet speeds. FCC stated that they are allowed to regulate broadband services (“Net Neutrality” 2). Internet providers are saying if people are using their equipment and cables they are allowed to set limits or prices as they please (“Net Neutrality” 1). “It shouldn’t be regulated if the market has many companies that the public can pick from” Wheeler stated (“Net Neutrality” 2). In other words, Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC discourages regulating Internet speeds (“Net Neutrality” 2). “Rather than guarding against market abuses by dominant firms, the rules have been invoked in attempts to hinder innovation, impede

In this field, competition refers to network owners (ISP). Their differential in pricing and control of information alters the competition. Anti-competitive acts by network owners would be barred due to the impact of net neutrality (St. Petersburg). The major companies (telecom and cable) could enforce a fee for faster Internet or prefer content that is associated with their partnered conglomerates. The cause would be a halt in innovation and end up giving larger companies the power to nudge aside the smaller start-ups from expanding (Linux Journal). Also, net neutrality saves the internet as an ideal marketplace. For the previous 10 years, the Internet has been a public marketplace where privatized companies are able to expand and grow, and this reputation will continue to serve (Opposing Views). More importantly, without net neutrality in affect, price discrimination risks start-ups from emerging out of their cocoons. Net neutrality once paved the concept of free market endeavors. Without these regulations, innovators are at the hands of network owners and building new online entrepreneurships or

Net Neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic and data should be treated equally. This means that Internet service providers cannot not discriminate or charge variously by user, content, website, platform, or system of communication. For example, Internet service providers are unable to deliberately hinder, slow down or charge money for certain websites and online content.

Imagine an internet dystopia where the most common pop-ups are “upgrade internet plan to view this site.” A click on the pop-up summons ten different plans, and before long there is a thirty dollar bill for viewing the site. If this was not paid, then the internet access to these sites would be put onto the “slow band”. This world is not too far off, with the only law protecting the neutrality of the internet being the fact that the internet is classified as a utility. Today, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is trying to change this by repealing the ruling from 2014 that made the internet classified as a utility. If these old rules are repealed there will be serious economic repercussions to consumers and other businesses. Consumers can be charged more for slower internet, and businesses could be forced to pay a ransom to ensure consumers have access to their websites.

Net neutrality has been one of the hottest topics in the last few weeks, with talks of a repeal approaching. Many have gone as far as to call the repeal the end of the internet as we know it. Net neutrality is the idea that all data on the internet should be treated with the same priority. They believe that repealing net neutrality will result in a loss in privacy and slower internet speeds. By putting the power back into private companies rather than the government the opposite will occur instead.