The Not Neutral Net Neutrality

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.

It is often regarded as the notion that, the broadband service provider should charge customers only for Internet access without any form of discrimination or favoritism on content viewed by end-users from their respective content providers. The concept of “Net Neutrality” is intended to regulate price and promote competition. Simply put, it is a premised on the principle that all Internet traffic must be treated equally without bias. “Opponents of the Net neutrality on the other hand, see bandwidth as a private resource, one that is supplied most efficiently if exclusive owners take responsibility for managing and conserving it, and are able to optimize its value by exerting control over the content and application it conveys” (Yoo,

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

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

With an internet that does not practice net neutrality, the internet service providers can swindle other’s websites by throttling people’s connection to them unless they pay a premium price. People are more likely to go to the website that takes one second to load, not twenty. This problem would be incredibly relevant for streaming websites such as YouTube and Netflix. Nobody wants to wait what seems like an hour for a single

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

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

With network neutrality as such a heavily debated and controversial topic, there exists a large number of literature and viewpoints on the topic. This paper discusses the viewpoints brought up within an article authored by two people. The article acts as a debate between the authors, containing points and counter points, and this paper goes over the main ideas and conclusions brought up within the article, while acting as a good overview for the reader to start their search for their own personal conclusions.

The idea being that a company could slow a site that they have competition with so that it would incentivize the consumer to use their alternative for the website. So if Comcast wanted to get people to stream shows off of their service, they could slow down the connection to services like Netflix. The worst case scenario from this field is an internet where the government does nothing to prevent “fast lanes” emerging where users who pay extra are given preferential treatment and have their internet speeds ramped up. This would leave the normal everyday user forced to pay extreme amounts in order to get the basic internet speeds currently available. Another concern is that it may become like cable television in which one has to buy access to websites in bundles like channels to get normal speeds or at load them at all. There is evidence of companies wanting compensation to load certain websites, for example: Netflix saw a 27% decline in access speed for its users and have been refused service from companies like Comcast and AT&T unless they paid for the access, a direct violation of their position as common carriers

Skeptics of net neutrality can often contend with those who support net neutrality by drawing comparisons with the Cable Act of 1992. The act was meant to protect the consumers by forcing cable companies to carry most local broadcast channels and prohibited them from charging local broadcasters to carry their own signal. One such argument came from Thomas W. Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University; he stated that the act’s inability to maintain the number of customers, let alone increase raises the question of the real effects of “consumer protection” laws despite its initial intentions. Hazlett likens net neutrality by insisting that it’s likely to repeat the same consequences, which stifle progress and profit.

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.