Net Neutrality

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,

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

The author of the memo stands as an advocate of net neutrality. Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 serve as strong legal foundations for Open Internet rules. They also provide the assurance needed for innovators and investors, and offer the freedom demanded by the public. Many of ISPs already have monopolistic powers. Net neutrality only makes the ‘game’ fair for startups. Lowering the cost of launching new companies and bringing the communities closer, the Internet is one of the most essential element to the American economy as well as society and should be kept open to all. One of the arguments the debate called into question include: what was the public’s sentiment related to net neutrality.

The article “Net neutrality is here. What it means for you” briefly describes what net neutrality is and the changes net neutrality has offered to many individuals. Net neutrality also known as network neutrality, means that many individuals are not restricted to having slower internet speeds or unauthorized access to certain applications, websites, or services meaning that the internet is open. The article describes the changes that net neutrality has brought. However, for the most part not a lot changed, many services that had been blocked before by large telephone and cable providers (ISPs) will now allow individuals to regain or gain access to blocked applications and services. Large internet services and websites like AOL, Facebook, Netflix,

With the increased access for individuals to allow their messages and ideas to be heard on a larger scale (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc.), more and more individuals are becoming more aware of the major events and milestones behind Network Neutrality. Large companies have invested a lot of money on the infrastructure that makes up the basis of what we know to be as the internet, and it makes sense that they should have some sort of say in what goes on. With the complexity and vastness of the internet, it is hard to create legislation that effectively protects the internet in what it is today, and not offend others in the process. The events in the most recent years have brought forth an increased amount of public and media attention on the subject, and has been the center of a large number of debates. Throughout all of these debates, the general public opinion has been that “Public opinion was overwhelming pro net neutrality” (KnightFoundation, 5). What this meant was that the general public was beginning to catch onto the general idea of Network Neutrality, and were starting to side with those much more for rather than

Since net neutrality forces Internet Service Providers to treat all content equally, people can have equal opportunity on the internet. Blocking, throttling, and slowing websites is restricted with net neutrality, so everybody gets to have equal competition on the internet. Without net neutrality Internet Service Providers would have the ability to throttle companies that support them, and block competitor companies and their services. This would start monopolies that restrict smaller companies from selling products and services. People also have suspicions that Internet Service Providers will start to make people pay microtransactions to have access to each individual site or group of sites on the internet. Because net neutrality evens the playing field for all users of the internet, net neutrality promotes

Net Neutrality also allows information and ideas to be spread to people. In the article Net Neutrality: Why Artists and Activists Can’t Afford to Lose It by W. Kamau Bell it states “When the activists Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors started using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter to discuss the killing of the unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, it began trending worldwide, eventually anchoring the modern movement against police brutality against African-Americans” This is talking about the spread of ideas on the internet. Without open internet causes like #blacklivesmatter would not have been able to spread. There are many causes that began on the

One of the greatest factors threatening the Internet today is the attempt to dismantle net neutrality. Net neutrality is the idea of an open Internet, one on which people can freely communicate online; some Internet service providers, however, want the right to block or discriminate against any applications or content from which said companies gain no profit. If net neutrality is destroyed, then private corporations have free reign in throttling the sharing of information and of services for their consumers. This would cause private corporations to hold all the business, and we would all become consumers, simply taking what the corporations provide. Not only would this be an assault on the consumer’s right to choose, but this would completely

Net neutrality is becoming a rising topic that could take the large community of internet users by storm. Net neutrality according to Dictionary.com is: "The principle that basic Internet protocols should be non-discriminatory." This definition by itself is very bland and leaves out many important details. I agree whole-heartedly with this idea of a truly open internet. Nobody questioned the free internet until on January 14th, 2014, a federal court of appeals opposed the Federal Communications Commission or F.C.C's "Open Internet Order." This allowed for large internet companies, such as AT&T or Comcast to discriminate against content displayed on the internet. This change could end up costing users a lot more out of their

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.

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

Net neutrality has both pros and cons to it. I believe that the pros heavily outweigh the cons. Other users out there may agree or disagree with me. If you want to continue supporting net neutrality by keeping it the same or making some adjustments or if you want to get rid of it entirely then, let your voice be heard by voting for people who are in office based that’s share or have a similar opinion as you. Net neutrality affects us all one way or another and some more than

Vickie is an associate professor at the University of Illinois and also their Director of the Center for Online Learning, Research and Service (Cook, 2014). She states “The lack of Net neutrality may create significant learning rifts between the middle and lower economic strata of students and those in the upper-middle to upper level economic levels.” (Cook, 2014). By allowing net neutrality rules to go by the wayside, would allow pricing to dictate who would be able to afford premium, streamlined service and who would just be able to afford the basic service. This could cause additional strife between those of the lower economic class and those of a higher economic

Even though the term Net Neutrality has only been around since 2008, the principals and debate behind the term