Network Neutrality Policy 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.

Net Neutrality is allowing users to free and open access of internet irrespective of sources or internet providers demanding special charges in order to use services provided by them. Now a days Internet is one of the essential part for everyday communication in life. Several services were used in our day to day life for example GPS tracking, google, Wikipedia, Netflix etc., and we can’t imagine a day without the internet. Internet Service providers combining with corporations were utilizing this and trying to make profit out of this by imposing more charges on the user in order to utilize the services needed for him with more speed and flexibility. There are several discussions and debates supporting and opposing net 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 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.

In the IEEE CTN issue of June 2014, It was noted that “evolution and technological innovation in communication systems, digital media, and user behavior may challenge Net Neutrality principles and question if or how Net Neutrality can be sustained in a new word of data-hungry applications such as on-demand video, online gaming, and music streaming” (IEEE, 2014). In the same CTN issue, specific Net Neutrality principles included, among others, no connection blocking, bandwidth transparency, universal connectivity, and best effort

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

I am Aric See and I am a senior in the Weidner School of Inquiry at Plymouth High School in Plymouth Indiana. Net Neutrality is a very important issue facing the United States, with many Republican members of Congress opposing the FCC’s Open Internet Order and the reclassifying of broadband to Telecommunication Services from Information Services. The members of the GOP who are completely against the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) reclassification, and attempts to keep the internet free, give many reasons that are simply not true, such as the FCC’s regulations will destroy the free nature of the internet. Because of the attempts by Congressmen with the GOP to fight the regulations, many Americans, especially small business owners that use the web as a base, feel that their equality and freedoms on the internet will be

The world has become more and more dependent on the internet and the wide berth of information and services to which we now have access. Libraries, educational organizations (schools, universities, non-profits), and students have embraced the “information highway” and have also grown to depend on internet access. Neutrality proponents contend that the absence of neutrality could give rise to a situation where priority is given to entertainment’s high-speed internet over educational content (Choi & Kim, 2010). It is easy to imagine that companies like Netflix, Facbook, and other companies would have a greater ability to utilize fast lanes than those entities that focus on academia. Libraries and educational organizations would be at a disadvantage because their traffic would have a lower priority (Jackson, 2014).

Paragraph one explains how net neutrality promotes innovation. The second paragraph explains how it protects freedom. Paragraph three explains how the Federal Communications Commission says net neutrality is unnecessary. Net neutrality promotes innovation and freedom, but the Federal Communications Commission sees it as an unnecessary addition to an already stable internet. Many reasons for siding with or against net neutrality have been given to show both sides to net

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 restricting access to certain products or websites. If this principle were to be repealed, the government will decide what is put on the internet and you would have to pay to access some websites or apps, or internet providers might just block access to particular apps. I agree with the fight to defend net neutrality because the internet is an important source of information. If net neutrality were to be repealed, we would have limited access to information. This article is important enough to share in the news because the news websites could be blocked because of the things that they report on. For example, someone with a higher authority may want a news network blocked by the news they report. I believe this is textbook worthy because this is a problem that could, in a way, affect the First Amendment such as freedom of speech and freedom of the

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

Many argue that the success of the Internet is not solely based on openness, rather the given access to information at the whim of a mouse click. This is true, however, without Internet neutrality, this unfettered access to content in an

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.