Essay on Net Neutrality

Verizon’s business is most heavily influenced by the advancements in technology, but other industry changes and government decision making are other social issues changing Verizon. As previously discussed in the essay, Net Neutrality is a bill that projects the future of the telecommunications industry. In the case that it is protected it will prevent a monopoly of the internet which will benefit more than just consumers, but for Verizon the abolishment of the bill will mean opportunity to increase profits through selling the internet since it will no longer be a free utility (Maisto, 2014). Thus, the industries future profits lye on the decision of Net Neutrality.

Attention Getter: When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience. When you use the internet you expect 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.

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

According to an article from the New York Times by Rebecca R. Rutz and Steve Lohrfeb, they quoted the FCC commissioner Tom Wheeler is saying, “[they are using] all of the tools in our tool box to protect innovators and consumers” (Ruiz and Lohrfeb). The FCC is trying to make the Internet be considered as a public utility so that it can be under the same jurisdiction as a phone, TV, and radio. The reason why this would be beneficial is because FCC can now control the Internet and can make cable companies not be allowed to charge fees, slow speeds, and charge companies for throttling bandwidth. By not allowing cable companies to enforce their new profit scheme, they are allowing freedom of speech to flourish online. Censorship of any kind that limits speech is very powerful and it should be deemed illegal by the government’s jurisdiction.

In the article, “Net neutrality hits a nerve, eliciting intense reactions”, Cecilia Kang discusses how the pending repeal of Net Neutrality by the FCC and Chairman, Ajit Pai, is adamantly contested by most of the Internet community and most companies, big or small. To develop her argument, Kang uses a wide variety of appeals from established and startup companies, statistics and evidence related to the reaction to the repeal, and demonstrations on how polarizing the issue is, and the repeal’s effect on solving the problem of Internet regulation. Kang cites a multitude of Internet-based companies or organizations, such as Mozilla, Google, Netflix, and Free Press, to demonstrate their concern and clarify their resentment of the repeal. For instance, Google and Netflix argued that “telecom companies should not be able to split sites because that would allow them to become a sort of gatekeeper.” These responses better clarify companies’ concerns about the repeal and its effect on their business, while also aiding Kang in developing her article on explaining the concern and the response it has elicited. According to Kang,

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,

Berners-Lee questions whether America “[wants] a web where cable companies determine winners and losers online?” and cable companies are able to “decide which opinions we read”. To an extreme level, cable companies would be able to determine “which creative ideas succeed” (Berners-Lee 2). This opposes the freedom that American citizens strive for. It puts a limits the equal opportunity that so Americans find so important. Furthermore, “the change would allow internet-service providers to throttle some online traffic and allow companies to pay extra for faster delivery of their content” (Martinez & Hoisington). Without net neutrality, internet-service providers would be able to smother small or upcoming businesses by limiting their audience. However, the impact of the repeal of net neutrality does not stop here. The repeal of net neutrality “also eliminates several other consumer protections, such as a requirement that ISPs be more transparent with customers about hidden fees and the consequences of exceeding data caps” (Brodkin 1). Repealing net neutrality would deregulate internet-service providers, allowing them to have far too much control over their

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

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

Net Neutrality is essential to our everyday lives, and it is perilously close to being repealed on December 14th by the FCC; but if more people take a stand in support of Net Neutrality, we can preserve the free internet. Net Neutrality needs to be saved because it protects free speech, free trade of information and services, and the privacy of our data. This is an issue that concerns all citizens regardless of political affiliation, but lawmakers have made it a fight between the two parties. Most people did not care about Net Neutrality or even know what it is until fairly recently, but recent events regarding it's likely repeal have turned the public’s attention towards it.

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

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.

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.