What Is Net Neutrality Law?

A. Net neutrality is an FCC (Federal Communications Commission) regulation that is the internet's guiding principle.

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.

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.

The fight for net neutrality has begun again with the FCC attempting to repeal the net neutrality act protected under Title Two. what exactly does that mean? Net neutrality is where an internet user has total unrestricted access to all internet content, and where big companies, such as Verizon or Comcast, are legally unable to control or regulate what someone can access. Furthermore, they cannot restrict access to specific content simply due to the fact that they disagree with the message that is being sent. This has been an ongoing battle, with one side voting against net neutrality, as they believe it to be exactly what everyone needs and the other seeing it as a breach of their right to freedom of speech.

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,

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.

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

On December 14th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote to replace current rules enforcing net neutrality. Nothing short of an extinction-level event will prevent it. But before we’re resigned to fate, know that while the battle for net neutrality at the FCC may have been lost, the war isn’t even close to being over which sounds kinda scary. Really, the net neutrality fight is simply migrating to a different theater, namely, The US Courts of Appeals. And excluding the possibility of a Supreme Court challenge, the outcome could very well drag on for another year and a half or more.

Content and internet service providers spoke out as well, increasing the need for some kind of legislation. Various forms of the original guiding principles were proposed as net neutrality legislation; however none of them were passed. Due to the growth of the debate and increasing numbers of complaints, the FCC has proposed their latest set of guidelines called, “preserving the open internet”, to be voted on as net neutrality legislation. Content providers such as Amazon.com, Disney, Facebook, eBay, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo, and voice over internet protocol company’s like Vonage and Skype, as well as educational or public interest groups such as Educause, Internet2, ACE, Regional Optical Networks, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are all in favor of passing the “preserving the open internet” legislation. Then there are those against “preserving the open internet” legislation such as telecommunications and cable companies like AT&T, BellSouth, Verizon, Cablevision, Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Charter Communications, and hardware manufacturers such as Cisco, Nortel, and VeriSign (Greenfield, 2006).

Net Neutrality basically gives people the right to be on an open internet. Earlier this year, the FCC adopted net neutrality rules. However, the lawsuit was due to the fact that the US Telecom Association thought they did it by violating administrative law. During the court session, it was debated that the FCC violated the providers first amendment rights about deciding what content to distribute. The FCC attorneys

Net neutrality is a set of rules designed to make Internet service providers treat all web traffic the same, no matter the source. Its defenders say these regulations are at the heart of the idea that the Internet without interference by broadband providers.

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

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.

In an article by The White House, “Simply put: no service should be stuck in a ‘slow lane’ because it does not pay a fee” (The White House). In simpler terms, without network neutrality, good services couldn’t deliver quick service to their customers, just because network providers won’t let them without paying a fee. An article by Rey Lin says “This principle implies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful when it is less focused on a particular audience and instead attentive to multiple users” . This explains that all types of services and media should be embraced on the internet, and not just those that network owners agree with, or are paid to agree with. “we cannot allow Internet service providers (ISP’s) to restrict best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas” (The White House). I believe this quote sums it up perfectly, allowing ISP’s to decide which services are successful and not successful is placing power in their hands that should be in the hands of the consumers using the services. Allowing ISP’s to decide which services are successful on the internet would ultimately hurt the consumer by not allowing them to decide which services they want to

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.