Neutrality: Should The Service Providers Offer The Right Internet?

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.

Our position stands with the European Commission that the Internet service plans, under the protection of Regulation (E.U.) 2015/2021, will remain uncapped, fixed broadband. EU citizens are not subject to artificial limits set on transmitted data by service providers called bandwidth caps. Internet Service Providers cannot act as middlemen in regards to deciding data speed. Companies, entrepreneurs, individuals - all should have equal access to transmit data without limitations online.

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

The biggest concern is that the internet will become pay-to-play technology with two tiers: one that has speedy service and one that doesn’t. The high-speed lane would be occupied by big internet and media companies, and affluent households. For everyone else there would be the slow lane.

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

Furthermore, some posit that ISPs could charge for site specific access which could further limit open access to certain demographics of the population (Cook, 2014). There are some that even argue net neutrality should also be considered in light of human rights. The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights stated that all humans have a right to “education and cultural life” (Long live net neutrality, 2015). As more and more information is accessed via the internet, lack of internet access (tiered plans, blocked sites, throttled access, fast lanes) could infringe on those

pay higher or even unfair premiums in order to utilize the so-called “fast lanes” of the internet

Some companies use more bandwidth than others such as video streaming services like netflix and that the more bandwidth used the more people should pay. someone might also say that these companies should pay fees for their high need for bandwidth. No service should be slowed down because it does not pay a fee. This would result in a slow of the Internet’s growth. Paid prioritization should be banned to prevent this. AT&T stated as a result of president obama's support for net neutrality. “Today’s announcement by the White House, if acted upon by the FCC, would be a mistake that will do tremendous harm to the Internet and to U.S. national interests.”. Net neutrality has been in place since the beginning of the internet and it has worked and will continue to work. People need to protect net neutrality before it is gone

Many years ago you wouldn't have ever thought we’d be here deciding whether the internet should be paid for depending on the different sites you went to. But as we know technology has grown bigger and bigger over time. So some people think that we should have to pay. Also speaking there are some people who think differently.

The faster Internet speed one desires, the more costly it will be. Meaning that big or small companies have to pay the same flat rate for the same Internet speed. By having the same flat rate for all companies, it makes start-up firms easier to get into the market. If net neutrality were not in place, as written in the article, “Goodbye Net Neutrality…Now What?” by Michael Kassner, who attended the University of Wisconsin, stated, “Getting rid of net neutrality will allow ISPs [Internet service providers] like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon to supply, for a price, preferential treatment to content providers.” Meaning that the ISPs will charge companies for their websites, services online, etc. to be faster. This could be a positive or negative thing for companies. If the company is a large one and can afford to pay for preferred treatment, not having net neutrality could be a good thing, as we can see from AT&T Sponsored Data service. As explained in the article by Michael Kassner the Sponsored Data service is,” Sponsoring companies agree to pay AT&T so its subscribers need not worry about monthly data limits — a digital version of the razor/razor blade theory. Content providers willing to do this are giving their users more or less a free data pass, so consumers will consider this a plus.” But there are downsides; AT&T or other ISPs can

have no choice as to who their internet providers are or the choice of broadband speeds that are

After reviewing the videos about net neutrality, and the pros and cons on the subject, I am a supporter of net neutrality and against priority internet access. The meaning behind net neutrality is essentially that no bit of information should be prioritized over another bit of information. The first video’s analogy was comparing the big internet broadband companies, such as Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, as big trucks dominating over the other smaller internet sites which would be the smaller cars on the highway. Now since the FCC’s new rule, those big companies will not be able to dominate the speeds of internet because they paid more money. I believe that the internet does not need broadband companies fighting over who is going to control

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.

An example of this which I think is a big factor is internet equality, also known as ‘Net Neutrality’. Net neutrality is the principle that all online traffic should be treated equally. If you are paying for a certain speed of internet connection, you should be able to use that to its full potential all the time, regardless of which website or service you are accessing. Right now you are paying one price for your internet connection, companies do not have any right to dictate what you use that internet for as they can only charge you for the internet itself, but if huge companies such as ‘Time Warner Cable’ and ‘Comcast’ had their way, each month they would charge you extra to watch Netflix or use Facebook on top of many already trying to impose bandwidth caps on how much data you can download every month. To put it in to perspective similarly, it would be like a water company charging you extra because you decided to use your water for coffee instead of the laundry. The reason why the example