Network Neutrality Nuances Summary

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.

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 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.

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 article, “Net neutrality hits a nerve, eliciting intense reactions”, Cecilia Kang discusses how the pending repeal of Net Neutrality by the FCC and Chairman, Ajit Pai, is adamantly contested by most of the Internet community and most companies, big or small. To develop her argument, Kang uses a wide variety of appeals from established and startup companies, statistics and evidence related to the reaction to the repeal, and demonstrations on how polarizing the issue is, and the repeal’s effect on solving the problem of Internet regulation. Kang cites a multitude of Internet-based companies or organizations, such as Mozilla, Google, Netflix, and Free Press, to demonstrate their concern and clarify their resentment of the repeal. For instance, Google and Netflix argued that “telecom companies should not be able to split sites because that would allow them to become a sort of gatekeeper.” These responses better clarify companies’ concerns about the repeal and its effect on their business, while also aiding Kang in developing her article on explaining the concern and the response it has elicited. According to Kang,

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,

Berners-Lee questions whether America “[wants] a web where cable companies determine winners and losers online?” and cable companies are able to “decide which opinions we read”. To an extreme level, cable companies would be able to determine “which creative ideas succeed” (Berners-Lee 2). This opposes the freedom that American citizens strive for. It puts a limits the equal opportunity that so Americans find so important. Furthermore, “the change would allow internet-service providers to throttle some online traffic and allow companies to pay extra for faster delivery of their content” (Martinez & Hoisington). Without net neutrality, internet-service providers would be able to smother small or upcoming businesses by limiting their audience. However, the impact of the repeal of net neutrality does not stop here. The repeal of net neutrality “also eliminates several other consumer protections, such as a requirement that ISPs be more transparent with customers about hidden fees and the consequences of exceeding data caps” (Brodkin 1). Repealing net neutrality would deregulate internet-service providers, allowing them to have far too much control over their

Name: Micheal Boor WORKING OUTLINE Complete this outline using complete sentences. Topic: Fight for Net Neutrality Specific purpose statement: To persuade my audience that they should contact their State Congressional Representatives to let them know they oppose the end of the open internet and want the FCC to keep the rules governing net neutrality in place.

Some Millennials believe that net neutrality is needed because net neutrality allows equal access to all content for everyone. Accordingly, “John Stanoch, president of Qwest Minnesota, said he’s surprised that net neutrality has become such a hot topic, but he said those who warn about diminished Web access are advancing ‘a bogus issue.’ ‘We’re not going to limit anybody’s access to the Internet,’ Stanoch said” (Reinan). The President, John Stanoch, isn’t going to limit people’s access to the internet and believes that the debate on net neutrality is a waste of time, and an infringement of rights. Stanoch believes other companies should take after Qwest and refuse to limit people’s access to free internet services. Limiting people’s Internet

Network neutrality has offered entrepreneurs the ability to start up a new business using the internet as a passage for advertising and gaining a customer base. It has allowed for individuals to surf the World Wide Web to read articles, look at photos and watch video’s all from the convenience of their home or portable electronic device. While there are two sides to every coin, there are two opinions about the internet and whether it should be managed on the current net neutrality concept or a more tiered approach. While both sides have valid points, it must be decided which approach is for the better good for society.

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 author of the memo stands as an advocate of net neutrality. Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 serve as strong legal foundations for Open Internet rules. They also provide the assurance needed for innovators and investors, and offer the freedom demanded by the public. Many of ISPs already have monopolistic powers. Net neutrality only makes the ‘game’ fair for startups. Lowering the cost of launching new companies and bringing the communities closer, the Internet is one of the most essential element to the American economy as well as society and should be kept open to all. One of the arguments the debate called into question include: what was the public’s sentiment related to net neutrality.

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.