The Open Internet Order Case Summary

So what are the implications of all of this? Well, for us lay folk, the court case tackled three other important issues . First, should network provider be able to block user access to any lawful edge provider like Netflix of YouTube? This is significant because many network providers would love to throttle customer use of these taxing broadband sponges. For example, I have family in a foreign country and by some means my network provider gains the knowledge that I contact them over Skype everyday. Since they have a vested interest in not letting me consume such a large portion of the broadband network for what I pay; they would want to slow down my connection with that edge provider. Second, can the reverse happen? In other words, can network providers scheme with edge providers to cut any special deals that would allow them to sell faster connection to those specific providers for more money? Lastly, are all network providers required to disclose how they manage online traffic? Basically, can we keep our network providers

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

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.

the August of 2005, the F.C.C. adopted a very important policy statement regarding net neutrality. This policy statement protects several things that are essential to anyone who frequently uses the Internet. It gives consumers the freedom to access any content and to use any application within the law. In early December, 2017, the F.C.C. voted to repeal it. However, just over half of the US states have made attempts to pass legislation that reinforces net neutrality. Net Neutrality protects American “internet freedom”, ensuring that the people can make full use of the internet and prevents Internet Service Providers from having too much control.

In the above article and video, the concept of the FCC voting to cease net neutrality in the upcoming month is discussed. The Federal Communications Commission is the independent branch of the U.S. government, which helps regulate communications via radio, television, and internet. Currently, the FCC has laws and rules set in place governing the existence of a “net neutrality”. New neutrality, also called the Open Internet” is essentially what allows all United States citizens to view and post whatever they please online, without it being blocked or limited by a third party or network provider. However, on December 14th the FCC will be voting on whether or not to “rollback” net neutrality, with chairman Ajit Pai at the helm of the limited internet

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.

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

Many neutrality proponents contend that failing to develop and enforce net neutrality will lead to the ability of ISPs to block access to content. Currently, there is a freedom of choice in that ISPs are unable to obstruct certain sites or contents over others but that hasn’t always been the case. There have been several cases over the last few years where ISPs have moved to block internet content. Comcast is probably the best known culprit. In the early-to-mid 2000’s, Comcast monitored network traffic patterns and began blocking certain websites (Ammori, 2014). The sites that were targeted were those that are known as peer-to-peer. Peer-to-peer (P2P) sites utilize technology that allow users to share data without having a centralized server. There have been instances where illegal data has been shared but it would be impossible for an ISP to determine that simply from traffic patterns.

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

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

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.