Net Neutrality On The Internet

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.

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.

In addition advocates of Net Neutrality theorize that Internet Service Providers with particular political leanings may use this ruling to stagnate or even censor blog posts, articles, information, etc. that are at odds with that ISPs distinct political beliefs and activities. The Huffington Post published statements by a proponent of Net Neutrality, Sarah Kendzior, stating “The threat to net neutrality highlights the reliance on social media and an independent press for political organizing in the digital age. Should net neutrality be eliminated, those avenues will likely become curtailed for much of the public or driven out of business due to loss of revenue. Without the means to freely communicate online, citizens will be far less able to challenge the administration. It doesn’t matter what cause someone prioritizes: The elimination of net neutrality will impede the ability to understand the cause, discuss it and organize around it.”(Fuller, 2017). This stance is in line with the idea that The Trump Administration, and its allies are forging a pseudo dictatorial atmosphere around The Country, where big businesses and the economically advantaged benefit at the detriment of the middle and lower classes, and where facts are disregarded in place of propaganda and

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

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.

There are four serious problems regarding US net neutrality policy to date. One is a market muddle problem that offers the same level of internet services while disregarding the differences in competition, geography, customer type, services, etc. These actions result in hindering advancements by causing undue analysis and aggressive injunctions on positive consumer protection services. The next problem is an overkill problem because net neutrality rules force internet service providers from offering service features. Providers

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

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.

Randolph May’s article, “Why Net neutrality is incompatible with ‘Internet freedom’” states uniquely free from government intervention is fundamental to a proper understanding of “Internet freedom”. Also, he says, “those favoring net neutrality claim to fear that, without government

I am Aric See and I am a senior in the Weidner School of Inquiry at Plymouth High School in Plymouth Indiana. Net Neutrality is a very important issue facing the United States, with many Republican members of Congress opposing the FCC’s Open Internet Order and the reclassifying of broadband to Telecommunication Services from Information Services. The members of the GOP who are completely against the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) reclassification, and attempts to keep the internet free, give many reasons that are simply not true, such as the FCC’s regulations will destroy the free nature of the internet. Because of the attempts by Congressmen with the GOP to fight the regulations, many Americans, especially small business owners that use the web as a base, feel that their equality and freedoms on the internet will be

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.

Your internet experience is in jeopardy and it’s up to you to prevent it. Net Neutrality is the principle that regulates internet service providers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast from charging consumers a higher price for faster connection to their content. Net neutrality allows access to the internet on to all consumers equally. When it comes to the internet and browsing, the speed at which your information loads is important. Viewing a video on Instagram, Facebook or YouTube, which takes 5 minutes to load can be frustrating to the viewer. However, more consumers would connect to a server where they may view a video that only takes 5 seconds to load.

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

Without the net neutrality rules preventing data discrimination, for an ISP to be legally able block cut off a competitor’s direct access to their own customers is an ideal business move. Hurting a competitor’s sales while also restricting the customers access to only certain profitable services allows the ISP to once again benefit at the consumers expense. Consequently, the consumer is stuck in a monopolical situation, possessing no way to explore, much less purchase, better options for internet access because they can’t access any of their current ISPs’ competitors. In turn, the consumer is forced into steeper prices because they have no way of reaching better services (2). Ironically, situations where larger companies can weed out all of their competitors for complete control of their base has seen government intervention to restore the balance of the marketplace; however, the FCC is allowing ISPs to effectively create a monopoly over their customers. If nothing is done to combat grievous mistake of net neutrality, the ISPs will begin to make us, as the customer’s, suffer the repercussions as they have done in the

Gigi Sohn, the president and chief executive of Public Knowledge, an open-Internet advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., asserts that the Cable Act of 1992 was not a true testament to offering protection for the end users. Instead, “there is no requirement that a cable operator carry any particular independent programmer. Cable still decides what its customers see and when they see it” (Wall Street Journal, “Should Congress Overturn the Net Neutrality Rules?”). Net neutrality stands to be much more as it prevents Internet service providers from irresponsibly endangering Internet users and companies with prioritization for certain services. Net neutrality stands to be much more as it adds a level of certainty that app developers and content providers can trust and invest to maintain a prosperous and anti-competitive Internet