The Benefits Of The Internet And Economy

With the expansion of digital and online marketplaces, the FCC’s responsibility to promote free market principles and business has never been more important. The order goes on to describe how it will use its’ legal authority to promote free market expansion, “We marshal all of these sources of authority toward a common statutorily-supported goal: to protect and promote Internet openness as platform for competition, free expression and innovation; a driver of economic growth; and an engine of the virtuous cycle of broadband deployment” (FCC, 120). By promoting open internet and the virtuous cycle, business and digital marketplaces have a secure and reliable medium to buy and sell goods, and promote business and other start-ups. The commission’s legal authority is derived from section 706 (FCC, 121). The order also aims at modernizing Title II, an act that helps promote investment and business activity (FCC,

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

Throughout the span of 2008-2010, another net neutrality bill was introduced in congress regarding Comcast blocking files but, Comcast sued the FCC saying that the FCC has no authority over their internet service. . The FCC attempted to apply a cease and desist order against Comcast but eventually they canceled it. The outcome of this dispute created an Open Internet Order by Democrat Julius Genachowski (Reardon, 2015). This is very significant because this is what made the net neutrality rules official in the FCC regulation. This order explains that people can access content to the Internet without experiencing blocking or slowing down. In addition, broadband providers have to be clear about their management networks and practices.

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

When ISPs were attempting to take away the FCC’s regulations millions of Americans issued complaints with the FCC in an attempt to keep their freedom and it was successful for the time. Now however many members of Congress in the GOP are attempting to undo the very protections that millions of Americans fought for. In order to allow for the best protection of the internet, and for it to remain open and free, the United States needs to reclassify broadband to Telecommunication Services so the FCC can regulate and protect the internet from those who would seek to harm it. Senator you once stated: “My question about everything I do is, does it make our country stronger?” and I assure you that this will not only make the country stronger but allow for a major instrument of freedom to remain an instrument of freedom. I want to thank you for taking the time out of your very important and busy schedule to read this and hope that you will honor the wishes of millions of

Many individuals still believe in the progressive ideals that the Internet was founded upon, and want to see that it continues to be a place for innovation, where information is free and available. They don’t want large corporations having very strict control over that. Only a few days ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill in an attempt to limit the FCC’s authority on net neutrality. The debate on net neutrality is far from over, and no one knows how the Internet will operate a decade from now. One thing is clear, however: the American people have a huge influence on what will ultimately happen, so if they want to maintain the privacy and freedom that they desire, they need to continue to make their voices

There are developmental issues that surround Title 2 and the internet. Does a regulated system generated what is necessary to stimulate the economy and the competition? The research that was released by the FCC and the Electronic Frontier Society has provided great insight into the issue. Net Neutrality is a trident of an issue; it cannot be fully encompassed by one of the following disciplines. Economics, Technological and Political science are the main three that encompass what Net neutrality has become. Technology is the medium that created this problem, however our economy is built on to it. We are in the New Economic Era and we need regulatory oversight. The consumer and innovators are at odds with internet service providers; there has to be middle ground to solving the issue.

As previously stated, net neutrality is a complex subject and it has many layers. One issue of major of concern is that of “fast lanes” and the establishment of net neutrality would prevent ISPs from forming these types of connections. Simplified, a fast lane is line of service that provides faster upload and download speeds. A fast lane would allow ISPs to charge companies such as Netflix, Skype, PlayStation Plus, and other streaming services for faster connections that would allow consumers to access the services easier and faster. Proponents of net neutrality worry that the extra expenses for fast lanes could become a formidable challenge for startups and small business owners. Large corporations typically

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).

On 23 April 2014, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reported to be considering a new rule that will permit Internet service providers to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier position on net neutrality. Municipal broadband could provide a net neutral environment, according to Professor Susan Crawford, a legal and technology

This means that cable companies would be required to allow Internet service providers free access to cable lines, like the model used for dial up Internet. They also intend to make sure that the cable companies cannot screen, disrupt or filter Internet content without a court order. This in turn would allow FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to enforce rules of net neutrality effectively. Furthermore, Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable and telecommunication to act as gatekeepers i.e. being able to control speed of loading of websites, as well as letting them to demand a toll on quality of service would create an exploitative business model and would also slow down innovation in online services. Further, they also argue that by charging certain sites, ISP’s may be able to block those who are unable to pay. Also, the advocates assert that every content on the Internet must be treated same and must move at the same speeds. Presently, the order is meant to set a precedent that all ISP’s as well as communication companies cannot impede customers from using their networks the way they desire unless there is a valid

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

This declaration is a large step forward in having broadband internet connections treated fairly. This entire battle boils down to the idea of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality enables the prohibition of ISP’s of blocking or slowing the connection of content to its consumers based on which companies are willing to pay ISPs more money ("Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet"). People against the idea argue that things such as clothing, food, and shelter are what one would call essential, but none of them are treated as utilities. By this logic, water should not be a utility due to the fact that public drinking fountains. If one were to ask the heads of Comcast and Time Warner Cable (TWC) if they were required to go to a library every time they needed to use the internet, they would likely scoff at the idea. If it seems absurd to not have any form of broadband at home in the twenty-first century, then it should be treated like water, electricity, or gas. Another argument against regulation as a utility is that most people have a choice between two or three different ISP’s. In a perfect world, natural competition would prevent the idea of regional monopolies that sprung about due to data caps becoming popular choices of internet service providers. When two companies implement data caps, one would assume that one would stop using data caps to gain more customers, but that has not been occurring in areas like the northeastern US, due the fact that there are only two major ISPs in the northeastern US. Back in 2015, Comcast and TWC tried to merge. But, this was stopped by the Department of Justice (DOJ) due to the fact that combined, the two companies would control thirty percent of the market and have over thirty million subscribers (Wieczner). The fact that the DOJ felt the need to block this merger

Regulation of the Internet is a volatile topic. One reason comes from the very nature of the Internet.  While not entirely different from

The effects of the internet on me and this society have been rapidly changing. Did you know that approximately 3.2 billion people use the internet, about 200 billion emails and 3 million google searches would have to wait if the internet was turned off for one day. Let me tell you about something that happened when i was little, it might be off topic a little but when i was little i was born backwards, meaning i came out legs first. My hips were out of place and until i was about 2. My dad is always on the internet and loved taking pictures of his “Little princess”, the pictures can still be found on facebook along with a lot of other things from my family memories. That was when i started wanting to get on the internet, i asked for a facebook and they said no, being a rebel i made one anyways just to play the games on it. The internet can have positive and negative things about it for younger and older people, for example the internet engines are one of the best information givers out there, they bring almost everything and anything to a lot of internet users that lange from all over the world. The internet can provide ways to communicate with family and friends from a long distance, and even meet new people. Bad things about it is people sharing and storing illegal information on the internet, much like the dark web. The addiction to the internet and the online network can be disturbing a person's way of living and professional activity.