Introduction
Network neutrality (or more commonly, net neutrality) is a problem related to the internet that not enough people know about. Biases abound in this politically heated debate and although most people that know even a little on the argument have strong opinions, it is becoming more and more apparent that few people are informed about this issue at all.
To reiterate, network neutrality has great support on both sides. However, if this problem is not soon addressed, there could be major problems with how the public uses the internet.
Hypothesis
By looking at what is best for the public and for the internet as a whole, net neutrality laws should be put into place to preserve the characteristics of the internet that make it unique.
Definition of Net Neutrality
Simply put, net neutrality is a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks. In essence, it argues that no bit of information should be prioritized over another. This principle implies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful to the public when it is less focused on a particular audience and instead attentive to multiple users.
To draw a simple example, take two content providers such as the Verizon website and the University of California website. If net neutrality were upheld, both entities would pay their monthly fees to the network provider and if all else equal, any bit of information from the Verizon website will make the same trek as one from say the UC Berkeley website. There would be no roadblocks or shortcuts any of the websites can take to make the end user desire their content more. However, witho...
... middle of paper ...
... market will only hurt consumers if there is no government intervention.
By allowing the telcos to tier the internet, consumers will be forced to pay multiple times for the same service. On top of that, tiering could result in telcos becoming an internet “gatekeeper” that could greatly influence what stays and goes on the internet.
Even still, the cases against net neutrality and for tiering are weak at best. Their arguments that content providers are receiving a “free lunch” are unsubstantiated and, in fact, the telcos are paid twice already. There should be no need for them to be paid a third time. Worse of all is their misleading view that the free market will even out any inequities of their plans when they should clearly know that their industry is anything but a free market.
If the internet is tiered, the greatest losses will be to the consumers.
Of particular importance is the deregulation of the telecommunications industry as mentioned in the act (“Implementation of the Telecommunications Act,” NTLA). This reflects a new thinking that service providers should not be limited by artificial and now antique regulatory categories but should be permitted to compete with each other in a robust marketplace that contains many diverse participants. Moreover the Act is evidence of governmental commitment to make sure that all citizens have access to advanced communication services at affordable prices through its “universal service” provisions even as competitive markets for the telecommunications industry expand. Prior to passage of this new Act, U.S. federal and state laws and a judicially established consent decree allowed some competition for certain services, most notably among long distance carriers. Universal service for basic telephony was a national objective, but one developed and shaped through federal and state regulations and case law (“Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Technology Law). The goal of universal service was referred to only in general terms in the Communications Act of 1934, the nation's basic telecommunications statute. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 among other things: (i) opens up competition by local telephone companies, long distance providers, and cable companies ...
B) The critical issue is that Comcast, the biggest internet and cable provider in the nation, is seeking to become even bigger in merging with Time Warner Cable, the second biggest company in the market. This merger will increase the influence Comcast has on TV channels and internet content providers, leaving consumers with fewer alternatives and will reduce competition to the amount where Comcast will control two thirds’ of the cable TV market and about 40% of ...
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.
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.
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
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
The debate of Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo is about whether keep network neutrality. The Network Neutrality is about principle “non-discriminatory interconnection”, it refers that all users of the network should be received equal treatment. The Tim Wu is a supporter of network neutrality, he states the internet more like a highway rather than a fast food restaurant, so it should remain neutral. Because basic on the transportation and communication network should within scope of public interest, not on the individual difference. But the Christopher Yoo as a opponent thinks even if deviations the network neutrality there will not be necessarily damage users and innovation and then he suggests an alternative approach called “network
Tim Wu is known as “the father of Net Neutrality” for first coining the term “Net Neutrality”. He is a professor at Columbia Law School and the director of the Poliak Center at Columbia Journalism School. He commonly talks about other topics such as copyright, private power and free speech. Wu believes that net neutrality can prevent companies and carriers to offer “special” treatment to one specific provider instead of another. According to Wu, Net Neutrality benefits anyone in some way and believes that Internet transparency is critical because carriers fail to tell what services they provide for the user. At the core of Net neutrality, there is a free speech principle. It allows speakers and innovators to reach people that they would not
Jaz Mitts Dr. Craig Smith HIS 103 3 March 2018 The Proclamation of Neutrality The proclamation of neutrality concisely covers the fact that there is a war happening between, in short, most of Europe and France, and that America was not going to side with either party in that war. It goes on to state that any citizen found helping or harming either side (probably referencing American ships supplying either side with ammunition) would be punished severely by the law . The document was written in 1793, less than 20 years after the country had earned its independence.
As new technology developments are made, consumers are given more choices when it comes to video, internet and phone services than ever before. This can cause a decline for cable providers such as Comcast if the company doesn’t adapt to these changes and loses its competitive advantage.
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
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
Net Neutrality is seen as the government’s way of picking and choose which company’s make the bigger impact within broadband. The internet plays a role in everyday life for people around the world. Within the laws of telecommunication the internet is mostly untouched by the rules and regulations of the government. Seeing that it would do stop it from advancing other technologies. Its global success of the internet is largely comes from, “it’s having been allowed to flourish in the absence of government intrusion or meddling.” Some of the things that net neutrality would propose is “network-management practices, having networks blocking certain applications at times, or offer tiered services should be heavily regulated or banned altogether.”
The internet has been one of the most influential technological advancements of the twenty-first century. It is in millions of homes, schools, and workplaces. The internet offers not only a way of communicating with people around the world, but also a link to information, shopping, chatting, searching, and maps. This freedom to be anyone and to "go" anywhere right from the comfort of home has become a cherished item. However, there is always a down side to every up. Because of the freedom to post anything and access anything on the internet, the issue of regulation has arisen; for example, what should and should not be allowed on the internet? Who has the right to regulate this space that we cherish for its freedom?
Internet regulation is basically restricting or controlling access to certain aspects or information. Internet regulation consists of mainly two categories: Censorship of data, and controlling aspects of the Internet.