Essay on Net Neutrality: The Future of the Internet?

III. Credibility: Through extensive research and personal use of the internet, I have learned a lot about net neutrality and how it affects U.S. citizens.

The second video “Moyers & Company: Is Net Neutrality Dead?” is about a debate regarding net neutrality, which is the right to communicate freely online, keeping the major internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast from increasing costs for costumers to not slow down or block any content they want to use, also called price discrimination, a service offered at different prices by the same provider in different markets. As there are only few internet providers, barriers are set by limiting the area where some of them are allowed to supply their services to, limiting competition and increasing costs for consumers.

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.

Furthermore, without net neutrality, “Comcast has the potential to slow up or speed down certain internet content, it could slow down ABC content while boosting the speed of NBC content” (“The Case for Net Neutrality”). In the absence of net neutrality, big companies can control the internet speeds based on bias. Seeing as companies such as Comcast have the ability to speed up or slow down specific content without net neutrality, the general public is not receiving equal access to all content. Under net neutrality, major companies controlling Internet speeds would be forbidden, ensuring the equal access the general public currently receives would be protected. To add on, the debate on net neutrality will determine if the general public will be victims to ISPs unfair and dangerous regulations. “The [situation] outcomes appear to give ISPs dangerous and unfair control over the internet, especially considering the role of the internet in [the general public’s] daily lives” (“The Case for Net Neutrality”). Lacking net neutrality, ISPs can control the Internet in unfair ways, greatly impacting the general public’s

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

But what exactly is Net neutrality? Net neutrality means cable companies such as Time Warner Cable and Verizon cannot charge more for faster internet speeds. Which means everybody who uses the internet will have the same speed. Hence the word neutrality. Verizon communication sued the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) saying that they do not have jurisdiction over that subject and limiting speeds is a violation of the First Amendment. "The FCC says Net neutrality rules are designed to preserve the internet as an open platform enabling consumer Choice, freedom of expression, and end-user control, competition, and the freedom to innovate without permission." This case went to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. The courts ruled in favor of a Verizon. The reasoning for the decision is that “FCC has no authority to apply common-carrier obligation like non-discrimination and no-blocking rules to broadband providers.” I agree with this decision. The reason is that the internet should not be like electricity. If you plug your phone into the wall to charge. It's going to have the same amount of current as someone else charging their phone. But what happens if I want to charge my phone faster? I can’t because electricity is neutral. But when I go on the internet and I see it is slow. What happens if I want to make it faster? With Net neutrality I could not make it faster. I want the option to make my internet faster. And what happens to large corporations where internet speed is essential to stay in business? The fact of the matter is that the FCC does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Net neutrality should never be passed. It will only hurt the consumer. In addition, the FCC approved of a $9.25 monthly charge to help low-income families connect to the internet. Three out of the five Commissioners voted for the subsidy plan. This approval is one part of the reform of the fund

By choosing net neutrality, we continue to protect our most unalienable right, the 1st Amendment. If we don’t protect our 1st Amendment here it could set a precedence were eventually we lose all of our first amendment rights.

"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.

order had created a set of three primary rules for net neutrality to govern how broadband

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

Many claim that regulation of net neutrality is out of the question as ISPs have no desire to block network performance. They say that the best way to stop discrimination is through encouragement for competition amon such providers.

Net Neutrality is essential to our everyday lives, and it is perilously close to being repealed on December 14th by the FCC; but if more people take a stand in support of Net Neutrality, we can preserve the free internet. Net Neutrality needs to be saved because it protects free speech, free trade of information and services, and the privacy of our data. This is an issue that concerns all citizens regardless of political affiliation, but lawmakers have made it a fight between the two parties. Most people did not care about Net Neutrality or even know what it is until fairly recently, but recent events regarding it's likely repeal have turned the public’s attention towards it.

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.

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.