Persuasive Essay On Net Neutrality

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

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

Most Americans today don’t even know what net neutrality is, let alone how it so greatly affects their life. Whenever you use the internet you are benefiting from net neutrality. Net neutrality is what allows us to visit any website at the maximum speed anytime with no slowdowns or interference by ISPs. This is one of the core ideas that internet was founded on. ISPs (Internet Service Providers) are the companies that are trying to restrict and monopolize the internet. The removal of net neutrality would allow ISPs greater control over what you can do, create and view on the internet. If ISPs have this ability, they could greatly influence people’s quality of life. The right to net neutrality is going to be addressed next year by the

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

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).

Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon are against network neutrality. Internet providers want the ability to charge users for the bandwidth they use rather than the speed of service they want. This could limit access for many users that cannot afford to pay the higher rates for premium service. In addition, Congress is also working to dismantle the February ruling. Congress does not believe the Communications Act is appropriate for this since it was aimed at telephone and voice services. (Trujillo, 2015) However, when the Communications Act was signed into law in 1934, there was no such thing as the internet much less a computer. As times and technology changes, the Communications Act should be updated to reflect such

“Net neutrality shackles the internet with rules and regulations designed for the bygone era of the black rotary phone rules that made sense in 1934 but not today”. This is a quote from Brian Paul who is a reporter from “The Mercury News” which is based in San Jose, California. Net Neutrality is the idea that all internet service providers should treat all lawful internet content equally and it is restricting the dynamic and ever-changing landscape of modern computing. Although, on the other side of the argument many people like Tim Berners-Lee who is known to be the creator of the world wide web say “Neutral networks are critical to ensuring fair, open competition in the content market and driving America's growth in the digital era”. It is

(Statement and rebuttal) On November, 21 2017, the F.C.C (Federal Communication Commision) approved a plan made by the F.C.C. Chairman Ajit Pai. His plan consisted in repealing net neutrality to make the internet a safe and better place. Net neutrality is a principle that states that every app, website, and platform should be treated equally. Since the F.C.C. approved this plan, people have been worried about what is going to happen to the internet. People is worried because when the F.C.C. repealed net neutrality they also repealed all the rules that were part of it. Those rules avoided ISP (Internet Service Providers) of blocking, and throttling of every website, app, and platform, but there is something that people doesn’t know. Most of

Net Neutrality is essential to our everyday lives, and it is perilously close to being repealed on December 14th by the FCC; but if more people take a stand in support of Net Neutrality, we can preserve the free internet. Net Neutrality needs to be saved because it protects free speech, free trade of information and services, and the privacy of our data. This is an issue that concerns all citizens regardless of political affiliation, but lawmakers have made it a fight between the two parties. Most people did not care about Net Neutrality or even know what it is until fairly recently, but recent events regarding it's likely repeal have turned the public’s attention towards it.

Yet at the same time, these two sets of companies compete for customers, creating a glaring conflict of interest. Whilst these issues seemed to be resolved by the middle of the twentieth century, the advent of the internet introduced a whole new set of problems. The term net neutrality, first coined by Tim Wu, Professor of the Columbia University Law School in 2003, came to represent a question that had long been perceived as being of relatively little concern – is unfettered access to the internet a right, or a privilege? (Cheng and Bandyopadhay 2011: 60) (Greenstein 2007: 61, 85) The debate around internet regulation and net neutrality first gained traction in 2002, when the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) controversially ruled that broadband internet was to be classed as an information service rather as a telecommunications service, and thus made it exempt from a considerable range of content and conduct regulations that it would otherwise have been subject to. For those Americans, as exemplified by organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who saw the internet as a space of uninhibited free expression that needed to be protected from the influence of corporate meddling, this decision was very frustrating. As promoted by Wu and others, net neutrality came to represent the belief that ‘internet data packets should move nondiscriminatorily’ – that is, the data (‘packets’ essentially being a technical

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.

Nowadays, people’s lives are closely tided with Internet, and I would like to talk about the concept Net Neutrality today. In a simple phrase, net neutrality means ISP (internet service providers) and government that regulate the Internet should treat all data equally, without discrimination or setting up any hierarchy that charging differentially. However, there are some violations: some Internet service providers have discrimination by protocol, which means favoring or blocking information based on the type of communications protocol/ transmission package that computers are using to communicate. For instance, American company Comcast was found out that they inhibited people to use high-speed Internet service in file-sharing software called

Net Neutrality is the principle of a free and open internet which is what we want. With it in place everything loads fast, if you have good internet, and you are able to access everything you want. So basically it protects you from your Internet Service Providers (ISP) from blocking anything they want. But the FCC is going to repeal it. This means that your ISP’s can and will create a slow and fast lane; where if you pay a certain amount of money you will be put in the fast lane. Also, your ISP’s will most definitely make a paywall for like an entertainment pack which would include Youtube, Netflix, HBO now and many more. I do recognize that the repeal of net neutrality will be tremendously beneficial for big businesses like AT&T so they can make money to create new technology, and for their own personal reasons. But people can already do that with an open internet, in fact a ton of people can do it because of the information they can obtain to learn things that they want to

known about it. The internet is crucial to our daily lives now, it not just a simple "fad" that gets forgotten in a week or two, but a tool that we utilized every day. The number of benefits that comes from the internet is uncountable, for example with the aid of the internet we now have instantaneous access to work, entertainment, medical, and countless more. Though that may change with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai proposing to end "net neutrality" or also known as the "open internet." Net neutrality was designed to keep the internet, open, fast, free, and safe from prominent Internet service providers (ISP) companies like Verizon, Comcast, and TimeWarner from trying to charge more for speed, and specific website access, something that is and should be free from the beginning. One author of the article "Net neutrality: needed or not?" states that "Net neutrality is about protecting the status quo that is the open Internet. On many levels, the term 'open Internet' is redundant. If it weren't open, it wouldn't be the Internet." He is right the internet would not be the same if everyone did not have equal access because of companies trying to profit. Others, however, are saying that there is no need for having net neutrality because it is unwanted and hindering the "markets" from being able to rise sufficiently. According to the study "The end of net neutrality is nigh--here's what's likely to happen" author Paul Fredric, cited Dane Jasper, CEO, and co-founder of California-