Net Neutrality Research Paper

Imagine getting online, only to find out that you can 't access your favorite website. It could be Instagram, Tumblr, or even Youtube, a website for uploading videos. After getting off the phone with your internet provider, they tell you that you need to pay to access your favorite website. Internet providers want it to be set up that way. Their has been an ongoing debate about net neutrality between the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and internet providers. Net neutrality is fighting again internet providers blocking content.

Net Neutrality is allowing users to free and open access of internet irrespective of sources or internet providers demanding special charges in order to use services provided by them. Now a days Internet is one of the essential part for everyday communication in life. Several services were used in our day to day life for example GPS tracking, google, Wikipedia, Netflix etc., and we can’t imagine a day without the internet. Internet Service providers combining with corporations were utilizing this and trying to make profit out of this by imposing more charges on the user in order to utilize the services needed for him with more speed and flexibility. There are several discussions and debates supporting and opposing net neutrality.

C. Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Here’s a video to explain this.

Our group’s topic is net neutrality. The reason for choosing net neutrality as the focus of our project is because it is a current topic in our country that is being debated about, thus making it controversial. Because the recent repeal on net neutrality affects the majority of the people living in the United States, the action cannot simply be ignored. Our group had many intentions in choosing our topic. First off, we want to explain what net neutrality is in order to get rid of any misconceptions about it. Then, we want to illustrate the effect of repealing net neutrality would have in our country. Most importantly, we feel the need to express our opinion on net neutrality and let the audience know that the repeal on net neutrality was a

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

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,

What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is when an internet service provider can block us from being able to use whatever application, web site, and products we may desire to use unless we basically pay for them, therefore limiting our access to whatever we desire.

[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.

With an internet that does not practice net neutrality, the internet service providers can swindle other’s websites by throttling people’s connection to them unless they pay a premium price. People are more likely to go to the website that takes one second to load, not twenty. This problem would be incredibly relevant for streaming websites such as YouTube and Netflix. Nobody wants to wait what seems like an hour for a single

Net-neutrality became a big topic of debate in the United States last year. Net-neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISP’s) should be giving access to all web traffic equally, without blocking access or favouring certain websites. In the first quarter of 2014, the FCC began to propose rules that would allow ISP’s to have control over their consumers access, basically going against net-neutrality. After being ruled out, ISP’s pleaded for the court to reappeal the case, which ended up ruling in favour of the rules by the FCC. This issue is interesting to look at for the ways in which the media reports it, because the majority of people are for equally accessed web traffic, but the media needs

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

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (2017), network neutrality means “…applying well-established “common carrier” rules to the internet in order to preserve its freedom and openness.” In essence, network neutrality forbids carriers from tampering with the data that is being transferred. The ACLU supports network neutrality because they feel that ending it would be an infringement on free speech. I agree with the ACLU. I am in favor of network neutrality. Network neutrality provides equal access for all and eliminates pay to play schemes.

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

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.