Netflix Persuasive Essay

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

Unfortunately, the repealment of net neutrality impacts us, as the consumers, the most. Without net neutrality, all ISPs no longer have to adhere to the laws set in place, and the ISPs can manipulate the internet to their own benefit. For instance, your ISP would have free reign to to slow your access to the internet(2). Especially for broadband intensive websites, such as streaming sites like Netflix, the ISPs would slow them down immensely in order to minimize the cost of the ISPs accessing that data (3). Access to the site would be unbelievably slow, unless we pay a ransom to access a “fast lane”(2). As a result, consumers are left with two options, pay a fee for the same internet they once had, or comply with unnecessary wait times. Without

An infamous phrase you most likely have not heard of; net neutrality. This is the law established February 26, 2015, where internet monitors and government were to treat all websites equally and not charger differently for different online access. It means that internet service providers should share their free networks without any conditions. The same way that cell companies shouldn’t control your forwarding and receive calls not what you say, your service provider shouldn’t hinder your

The topic of net neutrality reached maximum awareness earlier this year, when customers using Netflix noticed something unusual. Videos were buffering and taking much longer than usual to load. Reportedly, Netflix and Comcast were in a very intense dispute amongst the topic of recent drops in Internet speed and quality. The CEO of Netflix accused Comcast of intentionally slowing down Netflix’s video streaming service. Eventually, Netflix and Comcast signed a multimillion-dollar deal in which Netflix paid additional fees to improve video streaming speeds to the consumer (Cook 46). This news sparked an outrage amongst consumers and other Internet companies, causing them to question what happened to the principle of net neutrality? Most average

If the net neutrality laws were repealed this problem could be fixed by charging a company who consumes or provides a lot of content more. This could make it so there could be free access to certain sites, such as facebook or gmail without a contract. They could do this if Comcast were to charge Netflix more because of the large data consumption the streaming causes. A downside to this would be that the customers would have to pick up this increase in price, so Netflix could nearly double in cost per say. But wouldn’t it be fair for you to pay more to stream endless amounts of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and little to none if you just check your email once a

This means that cable companies would be required to allow Internet service providers free access to cable lines, like the model used for dial up Internet. They also intend to make sure that the cable companies cannot screen, disrupt or filter Internet content without a court order. This in turn would allow FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to enforce rules of net neutrality effectively. Furthermore, Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable and telecommunication to act as gatekeepers i.e. being able to control speed of loading of websites, as well as letting them to demand a toll on quality of service would create an exploitative business model and would also slow down innovation in online services. Further, they also argue that by charging certain sites, ISP’s may be able to block those who are unable to pay. Also, the advocates assert that every content on the Internet must be treated same and must move at the same speeds. Presently, the order is meant to set a precedent that all ISP’s as well as communication companies cannot impede customers from using their networks the way they desire unless there is a valid

A quote by Willa Cather says, “The end is nothing; the road is all.” This quote is stating that it is not about the destination arrived at, but that it is about the journey to get there. I do agree with this quote. Instead of only waiting for the end, enjoy and cherish the events that lead up to it.

What is OmniLit/ARe? It's good to see Scribd is working for you! I'm curious to see how Amazon's ad will help you. My year has been disappointing, too. My free eBook gets plenty of downloads. I have heard other authors say their book sales are down. One reason is there are more Indie authors self-publishing. Another reason is “in my opinion” Amazon Unlimited is hurting authors. Why would a reader pay for my eBook when there are thousands upon thousands of other books to read for free? Yet, I refuse to be paid so little for my nonfiction books. Half a cent for each page read is crazy! And at one point Amazon was having issues with their page turner, which caused unrecorded reads. I rather make less sales and get paid what my books are worth.

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.

YouTube is making fun of Olympic games and the Olympians that compete in them. Is it good to make fun of the super athletes that represent their countries, and for little to no money? It is not like they are NBA stars grossing a million dollars per game. Most are young athletes who have yet to figure out how to manage the fame. YouTube channel VideosBeforeYouDie posted a video showing on athlete’s “stoner” like interview with a news channel. And another posted the best Olympic games fails.

In an article by The White House, “Simply put: no service should be stuck in a ‘slow lane’ because it does not pay a fee” (The White House). In simpler terms, without network neutrality, good services couldn’t deliver quick service to their customers, just because network providers won’t let them without paying a fee. An article by Rey Lin says “This principle implies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful when it is less focused on a particular audience and instead attentive to multiple users” . This explains that all types of services and media should be embraced on the internet, and not just those that network owners agree with, or are paid to agree with. “we cannot allow Internet service providers (ISP’s) to restrict best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas” (The White House). I believe this quote sums it up perfectly, allowing ISP’s to decide which services are successful and not successful is placing power in their hands that should be in the hands of the consumers using the services. Allowing ISP’s to decide which services are successful on the internet would ultimately hurt the consumer by not allowing them to decide which services they want to

Sharp states that despite the fears of Net Neutrality destroying competition and deterring investments Net Neutrality does not prevent ISP’s from offering tiered Internet plans at competitive prices nor does it deter investment especially after the AT&T and BellSouth merger gained investors even while the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required the company to run a non-discriminatory network (Sharp, 2009). Therefore, the objections against Net Neutrality do not make much sense when it only calls for fair speed for all Internet content. Alan Joch, a writer for Communications of the ACM, even mentions that Net Neutrality can produce “a safer Net world where regulations would constrain anti-competitive practices, such as unfair pricing by ISPs that compete with providers of online movie-on-demand services” (Joch, 2009, p. 14). That being the case Net Neutrality also will prevent any “fast lane” fees or exclusive deals for Internet content providers with

Lastly, the plan contains a plethora of new regulations that will dampen investment and innovation for a faster, newer broadband networks and infrastructures. This will, in turn, slow down internet speed (Kerpen 2). However, the internet as a public utility will keep current internet providers from slowing or blocking internet traffic and will help maintain a free, open internet that respects the First Amendment, the freedom of speech. (Bedard 1 - 2 )

“The preferential leveraging of certain websites by telos and ISPs inherently implies reduced access to others,” Panda explains, “…this could lead to blocking others, either fully or, with choked access…” ISPs are the gateway through which all access must pass. Millions of web pages, platforms, app, services, with any and all types of information and resources available. There are small, niche sites (Reddit forums on Twilight Zone special features) to large, global content (the DOW summary) available at all hours of the day, and while the educational value of each of these would undoubtedly vary from person to person, access to both of these does not. Comparatively, in a world without net neutrality equalized education is constantly at risk depending on their whims of the ISP. Attempting to access event coverage on FOX news could be slowed or blocked completely if Comcast is your internet service provider. This not only leads to biased or even misinformation, but further monetizes the very nature of education. Paid prioritization, where those with the most financial resources can speed up access to their content, would hurt public and non-profit content providers, such as libraries, that cannot afford a fast lane for research and archival collections (Long). Additionally, because content providers that pay more for fast lanes could pass extra charges on to consumers for access to organizations that have not paid for such lanes, leading libraries and schools to end up paying more for commercial content while still losing their consumer base. ISPs are businesses at their core and thus have financial incentives to favor their own content over others, but once customers pay for their internet access, they should have the rights to choose the content they access. When someone purchases a car, they determine the route and

Amazon Prime is known for two day or sometimes one day shipping, however if the member aggress to the option no-rush shipping if the product has one which means it takes additional 3 days then Amazon offers a bribe. Recently the bribe has been $1 credit for e-books, digital videos, and more. One can order individual items, separately, and opt for No Rush Shipping and one can get a $1 credit each time.