Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues with net neutrality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In recent years net neutrality has become a hotly debated topic. Canadian consumers have favored legislation protecting net neutrality and Canadian telecoms have sought to change the legislation. In this case, Canadian consumers have it wrong. Canada should strike down its legislation regulating how internet service providers behave and move to a more open market. The current legislation forces all Canadian internet service providers to treat all traffic equally. This stifles competition and reduces consumer options.
Arguing in favor of net neutrality does seem sensible as net neutrality rules are designed to protect consumers and prevent internet service providers (ISP’s) from becoming media gatekeepers. Treating all internet traffic the
…show more content…
Protecting innovation is important and governments should be working to create an environment that fosters innovation. However, the current legislation in Canada goes past what is necessary and impedes its own function.
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 These rules are outdated and ill fitted to regulating modern telecom companies.
The monopolistic nature of the internet service industry is often cited as a reason for net neutrality. Current internet technology tends to limit consumer options when choosing an ISP. To gain access to high speed internet services, consumers need to be directly connected to the ISP’s network through some variety of cable technology. This discourages ISP’s from building multiple overlapping networks and creates barriers for new entrants to the market. Building a network that can service a large group of consumers requires large amounts of capital and the incumbent service providers can lower their prices which makes
…show more content…
While high-speed internet access is currently limited to a physical connection, our wireless technology is rapidly progressing. Most consumers also have an internet connect via their cell phone. This limits an ISP’s ability to abuse their power and filter or censor content from consumers. All of the telecom companies would need to work together in order to successfully filter content and this would run afoul of consumer protections laws. The coming 5G networks will further dilute ISP’s monopoly as it will be much easier for companies to provide internet access to consumers. As preciously mentioned, the United States internet was left unregulated for years and there exists very little evidence that the companies attempted to filter content or censor consumers media
In order for Canada to share an equal part in the overall media industry as any other country, Canadian content regulations must be in place. CanCon regulations should be enforced on Canadian media content, as it is a crucial aspect of national culture, representative of the country as a whole. Without such regulations determined by CanCon, Canadian society risks becoming lost within the commotion of international media and their varied interests.
The Internet came to be because of the user. Without the user, there is no World Wide Web. It is a set of links and words all created by a group of users, a forum or a community (Weinberger 96). The concept of net neutrality is the affirming concept behind the openness of the net (Vinton Cerf). Vinton Cerf stated, “The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive” (Vinton Cerf). Moreover, consumers would be protected under a monopolistic market due to network neutrality (Opposing Views). The Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com state that in a perfect world there would be a variable amount of high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers plenty of choices. This would provide a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open concept. However, the world is imperfect and a mediator is needed to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist (Opposing Views). Lastly, there is an existence of fast and slow lanes without the implementation of network neutrality (Owen 7). This ...
Net Neutrality requires to give everyone access to everything on the internet. This means that your internet provider won’t charge you for using specific websites. But with this, companies will have the ability to charge you for using basic things such as email, Spotify and even YouTube. Fast and slow lanes will also be included which may vary depending of what packages you paid for. But that is just the beginning, being that with this they will be able to control what you are able to see and not, ending Freedom of Speech in the
Electronic media content can be viewed differently according to personal opinions, but the First Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution lay the foundation for the legal system that is to be followed. These rights form a guide that help citizens have a stronger grasp on what is and isn’t acceptable within the eye of the law. Narrowing down to electronic media content, there has been a rise of tension involving first amendment rights of content regulations. The spectrum scarcity rationale has made it possible to control licensing schemes, along with direct content control to make sure rules are being followed according to the First Amendment. The differences between cable TV versus broadcasting are similar, yet contrasting.
The Open Internet Order establishes two sets of “prophylactic rules” designed to “incorporate longstanding openness principles that are generally in line with current practices.” One set of rules applies to “fixed” broadband providers—i.e., those furnishing residential broadband service and, more generally, Internet access to end users “primarily at fixed end points using stationary equipment” Second, the Order imposes anti-blocking requirements on both types of broadband providers (13). Third, the Order imposes an anti-discrimination requirement on fixed broadband providers only (14). Verizon challenged the FCC claiming that they have over stepped their boundaries, and violated Verizon’s first amendment rights. That the FCC
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
There are over 2,405,518,376 internet users on a global scale. More than 50% of the world has a form of Internet censorship, and of those countries China, North Korea, Iran, and Vietnam heavily restrict its citizens. This recent topic has reached new heights in the US with the growing number of internet access. More and more people are debating whether the internet should be censored. Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the internet.
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,
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
Consumers are harmed when a single company can use its power as a distributor to control what content and programming people can access nationwide. Such ‘gatekeeper’ power would allow Comcast to raise costs for rivals, keep programming from being available on new online platforms, interfere with the open Internet, control the market for streaming video devices, and charge Internet companies for access to its massive customer base. This merger could have other side-effects as well--such as decreased consumer privacy, worse customer service, and slower broadband deployment.
The rights put forth by the first amendment protect the Internet. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Wallace). In layman’s terms, this means that the government does not have the right to take away freedoms that involve speech or the press of the American people. The Internet’s lack of censorship encompasses Americans’ freedom because of the first amendment.
Internet is a powerful tool that allows users to collaborate and interact with others all over the world conveniently and relatively safely. It has allowed education and trade to be accessed easily and quickly, but all these benefits do not come without very taxing costs. This is especially true when dealing with the likes of the Internet. Countries in the European Union and Asia have realized this and have taken action against the threat of net neutrality to protect their citizens, even at the cost of online privacy. Internet censorship is required to protect us from our opinions and vices. Every country should adopt Internet censorship and regulation since it improves society by reducing pornography, racism/prejudice, and online identity theft.
1). Yet, as a whole, commercial innovation lacks incentive in Canada (McFetridge, 2008, p. 2). Initially, in the mid 2000’s, there were several issues that are liable for the decrease in productivity. For example, the acute respiratory syndrome crisis, the outbreak of mad cow disease impacting Canadian beef, the Ontario power blackout, and the drastic increase in the value of the Canadian dollar (McFetridge, 2008, p. 4). Analyzing the historical causes for Canada’s low productivity growth will allow the country to address and learn from their impediments to innovation.
Not only has Canada upheld its regulations annually but has also collaborated with organizations to further understanding and to keep updated. Research is done to update the progress Canada has made trends are formed and predictions for the future are made. This information is pivotal in making decisions for the future and understanding what can be done to improve. Canada has also has created an environment that facilitates research funding in areas of technology research that may have applications in the sector. The education of the general public is another endeavour the government has taken to further facilitate progression.
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.