The Pros And Cons Of Postal Service

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.

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 United States Postal Service’s (USPS) officials are neglecting their obligations established in Article One, Section Eight of the American Constitution, and established in the promulgated statute and tenor of the Private Express Statute.

Our position stands with the European Commission that the Internet service plans, under the protection of Regulation (E.U.) 2015/2021, will remain uncapped, fixed broadband. EU citizens are not subject to artificial limits set on transmitted data by service providers called bandwidth caps. Internet Service Providers cannot act as middlemen in regards to deciding data speed. Companies, entrepreneurs, individuals - all should have equal access to transmit data without limitations online.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Some companies use more bandwidth than others such as video streaming services like netflix and that the more bandwidth used the more people should pay. someone might also say that these companies should pay fees for their high need for bandwidth. No service should be slowed down because it does not pay a fee. This would result in a slow of the Internet’s growth. Paid prioritization should be banned to prevent this. AT&T stated as a result of president obama's support for net neutrality. “Today’s announcement by the White House, if acted upon by the FCC, would be a mistake that will do tremendous harm to the Internet and to U.S. national interests.”. Net neutrality has been in place since the beginning of the internet and it has worked and will continue to work. People need to protect net neutrality before it is gone

In the editorial, “Verizon’s AOL deal: ISPs go searching for content,” the times editorial board argue it necessary for the FCC to remain neutrality to other ISPs. To show how the FCC did give preferential, some ISPs merge in with other mobile phone network, have Internet traffic, and lack of great services. Verizon, the mobile phone network, decides to buy the dial-up Internet service AOL, just for its expertise in the advertising field. AOL used to provide their subscribers with great website services, but overtime other ISPs start to provide better quality services. People, who develop the sites, argue that their ISPs provide bad services because the FCC favors their own sites and other ISPs that give them money. However, last February,

have no choice as to who their internet providers are or the choice of broadband speeds that are

All data on the Internet is the same, where there is no discrimination or charging differences based on the user, website, device, equipment, content, application, etc. Basically, the Internet treats all content equally no matter how it is delivered or where it comes from. A good example is how you access Amazon’s website should be no different than a small local business website or downloading a video. The debatable issue is where ISPs would create a concept of “fast lane” access, where big companies would pay to ensure they remain competitive with faster transmission speeds. Within an ISP network, companies like Amazon and Walmart may compete to access a ISPs fast lane, ultimately leaving one to conduct business on the slow lane. ISPs view the Internet as a luxury because big companies have deeper pockets to stay in the “fast lane” which in turn will generate more revenue for ISPs. The loss of net neutrality means small business and certain websites may no longer

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