Network Neutrality

Attention Getter: When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience. When you use the internet you expect Net Neutrality.

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.

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,

[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.

Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet Service provider’s should treat all content on the internet equally. Most people in the United States of America want to keep net neutrality. However, the Federal Communications Commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to stop net neutrality, so many people are protesting to keep net neutrality. Net neutrality promotes innovation and allows freedom, but is seen as unnecessary by the Federal Communications Commission.

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

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

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.

“…a principle that prohibits ISPs from speeding up, slowing down, or blocking any content on the internet.” This is a basic definition for the term Net Neutrality, which states that under the act internet service providers cannot change the quality of your connection based on what site you are browsing. This single principle has not only lead to controversial divide between citizens, it has also made visible fundamental differences in each sides beliefs. In this paper, I compare two possible explanations of this divide and stress how important this decision is not only to the future of the internet but to the future of company-customer relations.

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.

The definition of Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular

Network neutrality is something that almost all people have an opinion on. Very few people could think about the idea of all information on the internet being neutral, without getting an instant opinion. The idea that companies, government, and organizations would have the ability to sensor and choose what comes up on any internet searches. The two sides are as stated: everything that comes up on the internet should be unbiased (thus resulting “neutral”). The other side states that the internet, companies, etc should be able to use our past internet searches to “help” us and make the results more “relatable” our lives. This concept, that most don’t think about, has been debated for over a decade; at this point, there is still no definitive

Around the world, several CEO’s of major tech industries are supporting the idea of keeping the internet free and provide access to information without any barriers. Recently, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg hosted a Q n A in which he mentioned his full support to Net Neutrality. His idea of providing the internet to the world using his initiative internet.org will help several under developed and developing parts of the world to get access to basic internet services and the content it provides. According to him the content should not be discriminated or limited by internet service providers like AT&T and Verizon. In countries where there’s no internet at all, it would be better to have some internet services so that there’s an establishment of connectivity rather than no internet. This is the reason the initiative of internet.org is important and can co-exist with net neutrality. He also believes that net