The Debate Over Net Neutrality Laws Essay

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.

What is net neutrality you may ask? Well net neutrality or open internet is legal content and/or applications that internet service providers give you on an equal basis. They cannot have any favorite websites and block others.In my opinion in favor net neutrality. It makes sure every web site is treated equally. This goes for all video,audio,etc. in my future I want to be a entrepreneur and net neutrality helps people get access to broadband networks without any problems! Big companies like Apple, Microsoft, google (and more) also go for net neutrality. As well as those companies there are some that are against net neutrality. Companies such as AT&T, comcast, cox, and verizon are against net neutrality. They said “The rules are too heavy-handed and could stifle investment and innovation.” Again in my opinion i think net neutrality is a great thing because i think everyone should be treated equally and should have the same chance and votes should have a fair play and have no cheating. Of course pirating is extremely illegal and should be corrected, many web sites are being copyrighted and stealing people's identities and these innosite people are getting banked ruped and losing there jobs for using these websites. Net neutrality is basically the human rights but on computers people need and deserve them.For the people that are against net neutrality, a new FCC chairman, ajit pai,worked as a lawyer for verizon and plans to get rid of net neutrality which would be a big win for

With the continually changing methods of reporting information, such as the internet, regulators struggled with monitoring and controlling the information that people were providing. On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality, a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services applications and devices on equal terms, presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls on the Internet.(AuBuchon) The has always been mixed emotions with the public’s opinions on this issue, but with rapid increase in technologies it would possible that any viewpoint could be aired through the many types of communication available to everyone, and go

Paul Anderson Mrs. Decker English IV 4 March 2018 Net Neutrality Internet is a new and constantly changing environment. In such a growing place, there needs to be regulations.

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.

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.

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 FCC’s move will allow companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to charge internet companies for speedier access to consumers and to block outside services they don’t like. The change also axes a host of consumer protections, including privacy requirements and rules barring unfair practices that gave consumers an avenue to pursue complaints about price gouging.

Facts: The FCC, respondent, established The Open Internet Order in 2010, which put into place new rules regarding network neutrality. The order made it so broadband service providers had to be transparent with consumers, and could not practice anti-blocking, or discrimination with their services. The first order details that providers must “publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performances, and commercial terms of [their] broadband Internet access.” The second order prohibits “block[ing] lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management,” “applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable

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

applications as they see fit” (Kravets). From this, a difficult question to answer arises; how

Verizon v FCC(2014) in this case the Appeals Court of D.C ruled that the Federal Communication Commission could NOT regulate internet service providers as “common carriers” and in fact that these companies could favor some content over other content with higher speeds. I will argue how unconstitutional and “unfair” this ruling due to the fact that some content providers thrives off of the internet solely.

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

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.