Net Neutrality Research Paper

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.

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,

The biggest concern is that the internet will become pay-to-play technology with two tiers: one that has speedy service and one that doesn’t. The high-speed lane would be occupied by big internet and media companies, and affluent households. For everyone else there would be the slow lane.

Back in 2006, Aaron Weiss, a technology writer and web developer, noted that, “The real fight over network neutrality isn’t between the telecoms and their end users—it’s with the major content providers, who now hold the largest bankrolls” (Weiss 25). Today, that is truer than ever. Content providers that have become immensely popular over the last decade, like Netflix and Google, want immunity from bandwidth restrictions and fees, because users want fast accessibility to these sites. The idea of no bandwidth restrictions is appealing to them because when they “can charge consumers directly, the only regulation that results in a change in their payoffs is strong net neutrality. Thus, moving from any other regime to strong net neutrality, increases the profits of the content provider that attracts consumer attention…By contrast, in the absence of strong net neutrality, that marginal surplus is appropriated by the ISP” (Gans

[1] The concept of net neutrality is that all data on the internet must be treated equally. So, this means that internet service providers cannot use deep packet inspection [2] (which is reading information contained in a packet to detect signs of unwanted or “unsavory” data) or any other means to discriminate against specific types of data or content they don’t necessarily agree with. One important aspect of the argument is how such a system would affect minority/low-income groups. I believe that net neutrality is an overall benefit to such communities.

As previously stated, net neutrality is a complex subject and it has many layers. One issue of major of concern is that of “fast lanes” and the establishment of net neutrality would prevent ISPs from forming these types of connections. Simplified, a fast lane is line of service that provides faster upload and download speeds. A fast lane would allow ISPs to charge companies such as Netflix, Skype, PlayStation Plus, and other streaming services for faster connections that would allow consumers to access the services easier and faster. Proponents of net neutrality worry that the extra expenses for fast lanes could become a formidable challenge for startups and small business owners. Large corporations typically

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.

"Net Neutrality The internet is becoming increasingly more and more prevalent in the everyday lives of U.S. citizens. Citizens who should have access to what they want to see, at speeds that should not be compromised because a company does not favor a certain website. Therefore, the United States government has a large duty to monitor internet content so the public can equally access the internet no matter the topic or issue. Net neutrality needs to be enforced by the government.

Some companies use more bandwidth than others such as video streaming services like netflix and that the more bandwidth used the more people should pay. someone might also say that these companies should pay fees for their high need for bandwidth. No service should be slowed down because it does not pay a fee. This would result in a slow of the Internet’s growth. Paid prioritization should be banned to prevent this. AT&T stated as a result of president obama's support for net neutrality. “Today’s announcement by the White House, if acted upon by the FCC, would be a mistake that will do tremendous harm to the Internet and to U.S. national interests.”. Net neutrality has been in place since the beginning of the internet and it has worked and will continue to work. People need to protect net neutrality before it is gone

After reviewing the videos about net neutrality, and the pros and cons on the subject, I am a supporter of net neutrality and against priority internet access. The meaning behind net neutrality is essentially that no bit of information should be prioritized over another bit of information. The first video’s analogy was comparing the big internet broadband companies, such as Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, as big trucks dominating over the other smaller internet sites which would be the smaller cars on the highway. Now since the FCC’s new rule, those big companies will not be able to dominate the speeds of internet because they paid more money. I believe that the internet does not need broadband companies fighting over who is going to control

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.

This declaration is a large step forward in having broadband internet connections treated fairly. This entire battle boils down to the idea of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality enables the prohibition of ISP’s of blocking or slowing the connection of content to its consumers based on which companies are willing to pay ISPs more money ("Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet"). People against the idea argue that things such as clothing, food, and shelter are what one would call essential, but none of them are treated as utilities. By this logic, water should not be a utility due to the fact that public drinking fountains. If one were to ask the heads of Comcast and Time Warner Cable (TWC) if they were required to go to a library every time they needed to use the internet, they would likely scoff at the idea. If it seems absurd to not have any form of broadband at home in the twenty-first century, then it should be treated like water, electricity, or gas. Another argument against regulation as a utility is that most people have a choice between two or three different ISP’s. In a perfect world, natural competition would prevent the idea of regional monopolies that sprung about due to data caps becoming popular choices of internet service providers. When two companies implement data caps, one would assume that one would stop using data caps to gain more customers, but that has not been occurring in areas like the northeastern US, due the fact that there are only two major ISPs in the northeastern US. Back in 2015, Comcast and TWC tried to merge. But, this was stopped by the Department of Justice (DOJ) due to the fact that combined, the two companies would control thirty percent of the market and have over thirty million subscribers (Wieczner). The fact that the DOJ felt the need to block this merger

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 internet is unparalleled tool used as a super highway connecting users to a vast wealth of information and knowledge. Networks work together to share information, content, and data around the world. Users and Content Providers should have the right to access each other without being charge more to connect to one another or being denied access as a result of ISP’s not agreeing with the content of the provider. Therefore in order to preserve the equality of the internet, Net Neutrality must be protected.