Network Neutrality Rules Research Paper

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.

In docket number 14-28, FCC 15-24, the Federal Communication Commission released a document concerning the protection and promotion of open internet. The internet is essential for speech, our economy, business and innovation, making this a very important issue to examine. In a globalized world, the internet keeps us in contact and update with persons and events all around the world. This document deals with the Open Internet Order, which, “prohibits blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization” of the internet (FCC 3). These objectives are aimed at keeping the internet open for users, and providing a functioning medium for business and communication alike. After the Federal Communication Commission adopted these goals of maintaining

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

According to an article from the New York Times by Rebecca R. Rutz and Steve Lohrfeb, they quoted the FCC commissioner Tom Wheeler is saying, “[they are using] all of the tools in our tool box to protect innovators and consumers” (Ruiz and Lohrfeb). The FCC is trying to make the Internet be considered as a public utility so that it can be under the same jurisdiction as a phone, TV, and radio. The reason why this would be beneficial is because FCC can now control the Internet and can make cable companies not be allowed to charge fees, slow speeds, and charge companies for throttling bandwidth. By not allowing cable companies to enforce their new profit scheme, they are allowing freedom of speech to flourish online. Censorship of any kind that limits speech is very powerful and it should be deemed illegal by the government’s jurisdiction.

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.

Back in 2006, Aaron Weiss, a technology writer and web developer, noted that, “The real fight over network neutrality isn’t between the telecoms and their end users—it’s with the major content providers, who now hold the largest bankrolls” (Weiss 25). Today, that is truer than ever. Content providers that have become immensely popular over the last decade, like Netflix and Google, want immunity from bandwidth restrictions and fees, because users want fast accessibility to these sites. The idea of no bandwidth restrictions is appealing to them because when they “can charge consumers directly, the only regulation that results in a change in their payoffs is strong net neutrality. Thus, moving from any other regime to strong net neutrality, increases the profits of the content provider that attracts consumer attention…By contrast, in the absence of strong net neutrality, that marginal surplus is appropriated by the ISP” (Gans

Many neutrality proponents contend that failing to develop and enforce net neutrality will lead to the ability of ISPs to block access to content. Currently, there is a freedom of choice in that ISPs are unable to obstruct certain sites or contents over others but that hasn’t always been the case. There have been several cases over the last few years where ISPs have moved to block internet content. Comcast is probably the best known culprit. In the early-to-mid 2000’s, Comcast monitored network traffic patterns and began blocking certain websites (Ammori, 2014). The sites that were targeted were those that are known as peer-to-peer. Peer-to-peer (P2P) sites utilize technology that allow users to share data without having a centralized server. There have been instances where illegal data has been shared but it would be impossible for an ISP to determine that simply from traffic patterns.

Content and internet service providers spoke out as well, increasing the need for some kind of legislation. Various forms of the original guiding principles were proposed as net neutrality legislation; however none of them were passed. Due to the growth of the debate and increasing numbers of complaints, the FCC has proposed their latest set of guidelines called, “preserving the open internet”, to be voted on as net neutrality legislation. Content providers such as Amazon.com, Disney, Facebook, eBay, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo, and voice over internet protocol company’s like Vonage and Skype, as well as educational or public interest groups such as Educause, Internet2, ACE, Regional Optical Networks, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are all in favor of passing the “preserving the open internet” legislation. Then there are those against “preserving the open internet” legislation such as telecommunications and cable companies like AT&T, BellSouth, Verizon, Cablevision, Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Charter Communications, and hardware manufacturers such as Cisco, Nortel, and VeriSign (Greenfield, 2006).

As President Obama stated in a letter dated November 10, 2014, “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas” (para. 2). “…neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online” (para. 4). If the government did not impose rules to adhere to, internet service providers would take that opportunity to exploit the opportunity to gouge the users by restricting access to certain sites or information unless they paid the top tier which would be at a premium price. People and many businesses cannot afford high price internet service and only the one percenters would afford the luxury of all access

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

Have you ever used the internet? almost everyone is affected by the internet everyday. Net neutrality(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 products or websites.) is being threatened by the FCC (federal communications commision) and some ISPs (internet service providers) like AT&T. People need to protect net neutrality because without it ISPs can charge you more, net neutrality keeps things fair, ISPs could deny access to websites and services.

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 debate of Net Neutrality is much about keeping the Internet where it is now or how much to allow ISPs, specifically broadband providers, to manage their specific networks. However, this debate is more political than technical, therefore the issue is the Internet has grown so large and to the point that the government is now involved in setting regulations. ISPs, such as, Verizon, Comcast and others have very little interest in just installing the cable into homes, however, the interest is in what data you consume, and from whom and how much, merely there is a lot of money at stake.

Net neutrality is defined as principle of treating all data on the internet equally by government and internet service providers and shouldn’t be charged differentially based on any term like user, content, site, platform application and modes of communication. Internet service providers shouldn’t rule us on what to do on the internet and should provide data content equally to all the users/corporations without any bias. This rule was implemented till now but recently Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reported to consider a new rule that Internet service providers (ISPs) to provide special treatment for the websites that pay an extra premium and slower for the one that don’t pay.