Net Neutrality Vs Net Neutrality Rules

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.

At the end of December in 2017 the big subject was about Net Neutrality and whether or not the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would be able to repeal it or not. The FCC is an independent branch of the US government and if they repealed Net Neutrality, they and big 'name brand' service providers would be able to charge the American body for internet and would be able to completely monitor and slow certain sites. When confronted about much of the backlash from the public about the repeal, Ajit Pai (the chairmen of the FCC) claimed that 7.5 million of the complaints he received were from a single scammer.

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

Throughout the span of 2008-2010, another net neutrality bill was introduced in congress regarding Comcast blocking files but, Comcast sued the FCC saying that the FCC has no authority over their internet service. . The FCC attempted to apply a cease and desist order against Comcast but eventually they canceled it. The outcome of this dispute created an Open Internet Order by Democrat Julius Genachowski (Reardon, 2015). This is very significant because this is what made the net neutrality rules official in the FCC regulation. This order explains that people can access content to the Internet without experiencing blocking or slowing down. In addition, broadband providers have to be clear about their management networks and practices.

These pro Net Neutrality opinions, however, changed as the FCC replaced two members and ultimately voted to repeal Net Neutrality regulations. When the FCC voted to pass the 2015 Open Internet Order, they did so with a 3-2 vote supported by Tom Wheeler, the FCC’s Chairman, Jessica Rosenworcel, and Mignon Clyburn (Selykh). The opposition, Republicans Michael O’Rielly and Ajit Pai, “warned that the FCC was overstepping its authority,” and “solv[ing] a problem that doesn’t exist,” (Selykh). When The FCC later repealed Net Neutrality, Pai had replaced Wheeler as Chairman, and Brendan Carr filled the empty space left behind the wake of Pai’s transition while the other Commissioners stayed (“Leadership”). As a result, the three Republicans, Pai, O’Rielly, and Carr, outnumbered and outvoted the two

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.

In the above article and video, the concept of the FCC voting to cease net neutrality in the upcoming month is discussed. The Federal Communications Commission is the independent branch of the U.S. government, which helps regulate communications via radio, television, and internet. Currently, the FCC has laws and rules set in place governing the existence of a “net neutrality”. New neutrality, also called the Open Internet” is essentially what allows all United States citizens to view and post whatever they please online, without it being blocked or limited by a third party or network provider. However, on December 14th the FCC will be voting on whether or not to “rollback” net neutrality, with chairman Ajit Pai at the helm of the limited internet

On December 14th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote to replace current rules enforcing net neutrality. Nothing short of an extinction-level event will prevent it. But before we’re resigned to fate, know that while the battle for net neutrality at the FCC may have been lost, the war isn’t even close to being over which sounds kinda scary. Really, the net neutrality fight is simply migrating to a different theater, namely, The US Courts of Appeals. And excluding the possibility of a Supreme Court challenge, the outcome could very well drag on for another year and a half or more.

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.

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 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

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

In 2005, Vonage, a phone company that transmits telephone calls over the internet or voice over internet protocol, complains to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about an unknown service provider blocking their telephone service. The FCC investigated the complaint and found that Madison River, a telephone company, was responsible and ordered them to stop blocking data sent from Vonage (Higginbotham, 2010). This incident was one of the first cases of an internet service provider discriminating against data sent over the internet because Vonage and Madison River are competing telephone service companies. Because of this, the FCC proposed a set of principles which sparked the beginning of net neutrality legislation that has been

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.