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.

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

In the IEEE CTN issue of June 2014, It was noted that “evolution and technological innovation in communication systems, digital media, and user behavior may challenge Net Neutrality principles and question if or how Net Neutrality can be sustained in a new word of data-hungry applications such as on-demand video, online gaming, and music streaming” (IEEE, 2014). In the same CTN issue, specific Net Neutrality principles included, among others, no connection blocking, bandwidth transparency, universal connectivity, and best effort

the August of 2005, the F.C.C. adopted a very important policy statement regarding net neutrality. This policy statement protects several things that are essential to anyone who frequently uses the Internet. It gives consumers the freedom to access any content and to use any application within the law. In early December, 2017, the F.C.C. voted to repeal it. However, just over half of the US states have made attempts to pass legislation that reinforces net neutrality. Net Neutrality protects American “internet freedom”, ensuring that the people can make full use of the internet and prevents Internet Service Providers from having too much control.

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.

Many neutrality proponents contend that failing to develop and enforce net neutrality will lead to the ability of ISPs to block access to content. Currently, there is a freedom of choice in that ISPs are unable to obstruct certain sites or contents over others but that hasn’t always been the case. There have been several cases over the last few years where ISPs have moved to block internet content. Comcast is probably the best known culprit. In the early-to-mid 2000’s, Comcast monitored network traffic patterns and began blocking certain websites (Ammori, 2014). The sites that were targeted were those that are known as peer-to-peer. Peer-to-peer (P2P) sites utilize technology that allow users to share data without having a centralized server. There have been instances where illegal data has been shared but it would be impossible for an ISP to determine that simply from traffic patterns.

Most aspects of net neutrality can be achieved without forced regulations. They say Internet Service Providers wouldn’t want to alter internet content access and speeds anyway. We should trust our Internet Service Providers. Internet Service Providers are afraid to alter the internet because they would quickly lose many of their customers. They say net neutrality will disincentivize companies in low income areas. We need more focus on broadband expansion instead of regulation of companies; some companies take more bandwidth than others, so having net neutrality overloads bandwidth on smaller companies that don’t need as much. Also, authority should be restored to the Federal Trade Commission. Internet speeds become overall slower by spreading out bandwidth. The Federal Communications Commission has multiple reasons for thinking that net neutrality is unnecessary.

A great legal positive for the ISPs in keeping net neutrality is that net neutrality removes all liability of what goes on on their networks, which we already have and they would probably like to keep. This, again, is similar to how electrical companies work. If an electricity company was unknowingly supplying power to a warehouse that was used to hack into a company, the electrical company isn’t liable for supplying the electricity because they don’t get any control over monitoring what that power is used

As protests continue to protect net neutrality, more online companies join in by displaying warnings on their websites, stating how the FCC, or the Federal Communications Commission, will change the rules for net neutrality which would affect the way people will use the internet. Sites such as Reddit, Esty, and Kickstarter included these warning in the form of pop-up boxes and Kickstarter cleared its home page to communicate to users with the message “Defend Net Neutrality.” On Tuesday, the large tech companies did not participate in the protest. A senior vice president at Public Knowledge, Harold Feld, said: “the biggest tech companies were less vocal because they were facing more regulatory battles than in past years.” Moreover, big tech companies encountered complaints from some lawmakers stating that they became too influential.

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

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 is the standard that internet service providers should provide all access to all content regardless of the source, and with no bias or opinion with products or the websites. Many consider this the proper way to create articles, whether news or not, considering that people deem only fact to be necessary. However, considering that facts usually stem from a similar source, this would eliminate all originality. Thus meaning, net neutrality will inhibit opinion in articles.

In this field, competition refers to network owners (ISP). Their differential in pricing and control of information alters the competition. Anti-competitive acts by network owners would be barred due to the impact of net neutrality (St. Petersburg). The major companies (telecom and cable) could enforce a fee for faster Internet or prefer content that is associated with their partnered conglomerates. The cause would be a halt in innovation and end up giving larger companies the power to nudge aside the smaller start-ups from expanding (Linux Journal). Also, net neutrality saves the internet as an ideal marketplace. For the previous 10 years, the Internet has been a public marketplace where privatized companies are able to expand and grow, and this reputation will continue to serve (Opposing Views). More importantly, without net neutrality in affect, price discrimination risks start-ups from emerging out of their cocoons. Net neutrality once paved the concept of free market endeavors. Without these regulations, innovators are at the hands of network owners and building new online entrepreneurships or