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,

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.

Most Americans today don’t even know what net neutrality is, let alone how it so greatly affects their life. Whenever you use the internet you are benefiting from net neutrality. Net neutrality is what allows us to visit any website at the maximum speed anytime with no slowdowns or interference by ISPs. This is one of the core ideas that internet was founded on. ISPs (Internet Service Providers) are the companies that are trying to restrict and monopolize the internet. The removal of net neutrality would allow ISPs greater control over what you can do, create and view on the internet. If ISPs have this ability, they could greatly influence people’s quality of life. The right to net neutrality is going to be addressed next year by 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

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

“Net neutrality shackles the internet with rules and regulations designed for the bygone era of the black rotary phone rules that made sense in 1934 but not today”. This is a quote from Brian Paul who is a reporter from “The Mercury News” which is based in San Jose, California. Net Neutrality is the idea that all internet service providers should treat all lawful internet content equally and it is restricting the dynamic and ever-changing landscape of modern computing. Although, on the other side of the argument many people like Tim Berners-Lee who is known to be the creator of the world wide web say “Neutral networks are critical to ensuring fair, open competition in the content market and driving America's growth in the digital era”. It is

As written in the article, “Net Neutrality” by publicknowledge.org, net neutrality is “the principle that individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet service providers discriminating against specific online services or websites.” Net neutrality (also known as network neutrality, Internet neutrality and net equality) has two opposing views on whether or not it should be required by law. On one side, there are people that support net neutrality because they are concerned that their internet providers would block Internet applications and content (such as services, websites and protocols) and even go as far as blocking competitors. While on the other side, the people against

"Net neutrality is an issue that's been on the agenda in the U.S. for years but it actually affects people all over the world. The net neutrality is a set of rules that prohibits companies, organizations, corporations, from playing favorites or regulating the sites that how much traffic and fast traffic can flow to. Every site on internet is equal and no one can restrict access or slow down access to any particular site or service and puts everything on the internet on an equal playing field that everyone has access to the same internet speed, every site has access to the same users, we really can't restrict access to anything and when we say that they repeal net neutrality, it is essentially means that they are making it right for companies to say like well on the service that i'm going to block your access to this site or i am going to slow down the speed at which you can access a particular site or a particular service and you could

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,

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.

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

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

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

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.