1. Gross, Grant. “House Rejects ‘Net neutrality’, Passes Telecom Reform Bill” Network World 23.23 (2006): 10.
AUTHOR Grant Gross.
DATE June 12
YEAR 2006
PUBLICATION Network World
LOCATION Framingham, MA
PUBLISHER Network World Inc.
VOLUME 23
ISSUE 23
PAGE NUMBERS 10
LINK ---
The House of Representatives has defeated a provision to require U.S. broadband providers to offer the same speed of service to competitors that's available to partners, a major defeat to a coalition of online companies and consumer groups.
"It is a shame that the House turned its back on the open essence of the Internet," Gigi Sohn, president of consumer rights group Public Knowledge, said in an e-mail."Instead, the House ... voted to allow the telephone and cable companies to discriminate by controlling the content that will flow over the network."
The Senate is debating its own broadband and telecom reform bill, but the current version doesn't include a 'Net neutrality requirement. Lawmakers have introduced four stand-alone 'Net neutrality bills, but the defeat in the House could mean the issue is dead until 2007.
__________________________________________________________________________________
2. Steinert-Threlkeld, Tom. “Both Call Time Out on ‘Net Neutrality’”. Multicahnnel News 27.26
(2006): 22.
AUTHOR Tom Steinert-Threlkeld
DATE June 26
YEAR 2006
PUBLICATION Multicahnnel News
LOCATION New York
PUBLISHER Reed Business Information
VOLUME 27
ISSUE 26
PAGE NUMBERS 22
LINK ---
Somehow, the Web not only survived, but thrived. The ability of Web sites to make money
produced a lot of failures in the dot.com rush. But it also produced lasting, powerhouse
brands. Most notably eBay, Google and Yahoo.
Now, these Internet giants want to freeze the commercial Internet in place.
They're fearful that the two main providers of Internet access, telephone and cable companies, will block access to sites that somehow compete with services they also offer online.
The real issue behind network neutrality is cost-shifting. The Internet giants that grew large on the basis of charging sponsors fees (Yahoo, Google) or users for handling transactions (eBay) don't want someone else to find a new revenue stream that, to them, becomes a new expense stream.
It's hard to escape the feeling that this is not an altruistic fight for keeping the grounds fertile for the "next" Google to emerge. But to keep present business models intact.
__________________________________________________________________________________
3. Searcy, Dionne; Schatz, Amy. “Not So Neutral”. Wall Street Journal 14 June 2006, Eastern
Edition: B1-B2.
AUTHOR(s) Searcy, Dionne; Schatz, Amy
DATE Jun 14
YEAR 2006
PUBLICATION Wall Street Journal (Eastern Ed.)
LOCATION Princeton, New Jersey
PUBLISHER Dow Jones
VOLUME 247
ISSUE 138
PAGE NUMBERS B1-B2
LINK ---
People on both sides of the issue -- but mostly those who favor Net neutrality, or treating all Internet traffic the same -- have turned to the Web to get out their messages in a complicated debate before Congress now. More than a dozen online videos sound off on whether Cong...
... middle of paper ...
...ad.
Or so it seemed. Yahoo spent the bubble years insisting infotainment and telecom were separate businesses, but Yahoo lately has been snuggling up into a strategic partnership with phone giant SBC, the nation's biggest DSL provider.
And bellwether Google? It's been buying up unused backbone capacity and dangling free wireless broadband in front of San Francisco and its nearby hometown of Mountain View. In the works may be a network of Google wireless hotspots, giving it one more hook to suck web users into its advertising-supported model for web services.
But what's really stirring up Congress's ominous urge to rewrite the 1996 Telecom Act are the TV plans of the Baby Bells, Verizon and SBC. They're both rolling out IPTV -- or Internet television -- in essence, ultrafast broadband capable of delivering high-definition video streams.
Most of all, if deployment isn't a paying proposition, deployment won't take place, and mandatory nondiscrimination threatens to undermine the economics of the new broadband initiatives. Morgan Stanley telecom analyst Simon Flannery already is warning clients that the Bell projects "could be delayed or possibly terminated" as investors look askance at the billions being thrown at business models with uncertain payoffs.
Where's Microsoft in this debate? With a host of e-commerce companies, it has adopted a defensive posture, adding its voice to those of Google, Amazon, eBay and Barry Diller's InterActiveCorp demanding that "net neutrality" (the new definition of "open access") be written into any new telecom law.
When we think of those skilled in the art of rhetoric, we often jump to those we know are trying to convince us of something, like politicians, salesmen, lawyers, etc. We do not always consider corporate CEOs part of that group though Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings, would have us believing another thing. On March 20th, 2014, Hastings published an article titled “Internet Tolls And The Case For Strong Net Neutrality” on Netflix’s official blog. Just under a month before the blog was posted, Netflix settled a deal paying Comcast, America’s largest cable and Internet service provider (ISP), for faster and more reliable service to Comcast’s subscribers (Cohen and Wyatt). These “internet tolls” go against the culture of net neutrality in America, which in its essence is when no piece of information is prioritized over another on broadband networks. Hastings took to their blog to advocate for net neutrality and against abusive ISPs. Whether he was conscious of his rhetorical finesse or not, he wrote quite convincingly thus turning this blog into an excellent rhetorical artifact. Reed Hastings’ blog post aims to convince American Internet consumers that strong net neutrality is important by appealing to their values of choice, frugality and empathy while simultaneously making ISPs seem ill intentioned and Netflix seem honorable.
On any given day in 2015, you would be hard-pressed to walk into a room at random in America without encountering a Smart Phone. There is hardly a library left that does not feature a quiet chorus of clicking keyboards from the laptops within. We are, in essence, permanently plugged in to the Great and Powerful Internet, and we rely on service providers (ISP’s) to provide us with this now-important resource. Lately, though, getting Internet is becoming less and less simple as folks debate the enforcement of Internet— or “net”— neutrality in the United States. There are a lot of inflated egos arguing back and forth on the subject, and the phrase “net neutrality” is becoming widely recognized amongst every day Internet users. But how many of these people actually get what is going on, here? What is net neutrality, and why are household net surfers and economists alike getting
advantage of the brands, services, and technologies that AOL offers, and by integrating these two companies these services will be a part of
Although the net neutrality debate didn’t come into the spot light so long ago, it has sparked controversy in the communications world. This concept provides a positive impact to the consumers, competition and network owners/internet service providers. It broadens the aspect of equality, which the open Internet was first based on. The profound effects on the aforementioned players provide a supported purpose to regulate the notion of net neutrality.
The competitive landscape of the wireless telecommunications industry is likely to intensify and leaders in the industry are competing to retain and gain customers in new and innovative ways. One of the biggest forces driving this competition is the drive to beat competitors to the punch in terms of expanding network coverage, increasing network speed, and the development of new technologies. It is extremely important for Verizon to anticipate and act before their competitors to keep their position as the nation's leading wireless service provider. Verizon’s main competitors have invested large amounts of capital into catching up with their network coverage, and
A recent and hotly debated topic among businesses, politicians, and internet users in the United States is that of net neutrality. With the rise of the internet over the past few decades, laws and regulations have struggled to keep up with the ever changing environment. As such, the problem of whether net neutrality should be enforced, and to what extent, has been a dividing issue. This problem has come into the public’s attention recently due to infringements and controversy surrounding policies by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In the following paragraphs, I plan to first define the concept of net neutrality, related topics which are crucial for an informed ethical discussion of the topic, and also related cases in which net neutrality
On thursday The Federal Communications Commission voted to end net neutrality. A Lot of people were not happy with their decision, some states and interest groups are planning to sue. Back in october 29, 2007 Barack Obama pledged support for net neutrality to protect free and open internet, later on in 2015 the FCC voted in favor of strong net neutrality rules to keep the internet open and free. Now 3 men decided to go against it causing the end of net neutrality and ignoring 83% of peoples wishes.
Years later, the Telecommunication Act of 1996 triggered dramatic changes in the competitive landscape. SBC Communications Inc. established itself as a global communications provider by acquiring Pacific Telesis Group and becoming the new AT&T. The merger of AT& T and BellSouth, along with the ownership consolidation of Cingular Wireless and YELLOWPAGES.COM, will speed convergence, competition and continued innovation in the communications and entertainment industry, creating new solutions for consumers and businesses and positioned to lead the industry in one of its most signifi...
The United States believed that the FCC would consider bending the rules allowing internet service providers or ISPs to violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for Internet users to access certain content. This problem was explained by John Oliver the host of Last Week Tonight explained that,
The United States only recently introduced net neutrality legislation. Prior to these regulations, the internet functioned in a healthy and fair manner. The rules put in place in 2015 by the Obama administration were attempting to fix a problem that didn’t exist. These rules have limited consumers options rather than protecting them. The FCC under the Obama administration used legislation from the 1930’s and the 1990’s to regulate modern telecom companies. These rules are outdated and ill fitted to regulating modern telecom companies.
Net neutrality was the big talk towards the end of 2017. Taking away net neutrality would cause chaos in my opinion. Making schools and other organizations pay to use technology only discourages them from doing so which is a major step backwards in such a technological point in time. The world is constantly creating new ways to implement technology to our everyday lives and charging us to do so is not a step in the right direction. Saying that getting rid of net neutrality will do away with discrimination is absurd. Discrimination was around way before the internet was but instead we once again have one political party trying to undermine the other by playing the victim. I do agree that it isn’t right that such huge corporations such as
Many believe the internet was an over night sensation, that one day, someone invented the internet and it spread in popularity faster than Tickle Me Elmo or the Macarena. Although the internet did have a surge of commercial popularity, with the invention of Mosaic and later with e-commerce, it was created many years ago with the development of military networking technologies. Also, the internet, unlike many pop culture fads of the nineties, will continue to see a growth in popularity and usefulness as a form of media throughout the information age. Sure, the internet became overambitious to the point where many internet start-up companies lost their businesses in the recession of the past few years. The quality of the internet, however, has increased as companies realize that there exists competition and smarter consumers that demand superiority. The internet has taken the world so far in its short commercial life; the future of the internet provides limitless possibilities of a much different future.
Schmidt, E. E., & Cohen, J. (2014, March 11). The Future of Internet Freedom. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from
This decision stems from the Telecommunications act of 1996 which gives the Federal Communications Commission the ability define standard leasing rates with almost infinite flexibility. However, Verizon successfully argued that the Federal Communications Commission isn't authorized require a state utility commission to set rates by local exchange carriers for lease of network elements to competitive local exchange carriers. Essentially, three main issues were focused on: the pricing rules for unbundled network elements; whether excluding past costs constitutes a governmental taking; and thirdly what are the rules for combining network elements.
Most of the Internet regulation is imposed by the Government in an effort to protect the best interest of the general public and is concerned with some form of censorship.