The Importance Of The Internet

How has technology and the Internet have brought young people closer together? For today’s teens, friendships can start digitally: 57% of teens have met a new friend online. Social media and online gaming are the most common digital venues for meeting friends. Phone calls are less common early in a friendship, but are still an important way that teens talk with their closest friends.

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.

The second video “Moyers & Company: Is Net Neutrality Dead?” is about a debate regarding net neutrality, which is the right to communicate freely online, keeping the major internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast from increasing costs for costumers to not slow down or block any content they want to use, also called price discrimination, a service offered at different prices by the same provider in different markets. As there are only few internet providers, barriers are set by limiting the area where some of them are allowed to supply their services to, limiting competition and increasing costs for consumers.

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

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.

In the IEEE CTN issue of June 2014, It was noted that “evolution and technological innovation in communication systems, digital media, and user behavior may challenge Net Neutrality principles and question if or how Net Neutrality can be sustained in a new word of data-hungry applications such as on-demand video, online gaming, and music streaming” (IEEE, 2014). In the same CTN issue, specific Net Neutrality principles included, among others, no connection blocking, bandwidth transparency, universal connectivity, and best effort

Berners-Lee questions whether America “[wants] a web where cable companies determine winners and losers online?” and cable companies are able to “decide which opinions we read”. To an extreme level, cable companies would be able to determine “which creative ideas succeed” (Berners-Lee 2). This opposes the freedom that American citizens strive for. It puts a limits the equal opportunity that so Americans find so important. Furthermore, “the change would allow internet-service providers to throttle some online traffic and allow companies to pay extra for faster delivery of their content” (Martinez & Hoisington). Without net neutrality, internet-service providers would be able to smother small or upcoming businesses by limiting their audience. However, the impact of the repeal of net neutrality does not stop here. The repeal of net neutrality “also eliminates several other consumer protections, such as a requirement that ISPs be more transparent with customers about hidden fees and the consequences of exceeding data caps” (Brodkin 1). Repealing net neutrality would deregulate internet-service providers, allowing them to have far too much control over their

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 world has become more and more dependent on the internet and the wide berth of information and services to which we now have access. Libraries, educational organizations (schools, universities, non-profits), and students have embraced the “information highway” and have also grown to depend on internet access. Neutrality proponents contend that the absence of neutrality could give rise to a situation where priority is given to entertainment’s high-speed internet over educational content (Choi & Kim, 2010). It is easy to imagine that companies like Netflix, Facbook, and other companies would have a greater ability to utilize fast lanes than those entities that focus on academia. Libraries and educational organizations would be at a disadvantage because their traffic would have a lower priority (Jackson, 2014).

Network neutrality has offered entrepreneurs the ability to start up a new business using the internet as a passage for advertising and gaining a customer base. It has allowed for individuals to surf the World Wide Web to read articles, look at photos and watch video’s all from the convenience of their home or portable electronic device. While there are two sides to every coin, there are two opinions about the internet and whether it should be managed on the current net neutrality concept or a more tiered approach. While both sides have valid points, it must be decided which approach is for the better good for society.

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

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 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.