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
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
place. It should be left up to the users to decide what is broadcast. Most
Depending on whether or not you're a net geek like me, you probably know either everything or nothing about Senate bill 314, the Communications Decency Act. (I'm a huge net geek: I've already received at least three copies of an on-line petition against it.) Senate bill 314, proposed by Senator Exon and currently under consideration in the Senate, would ban obscenity on-line, making it a federal crime to transmit or make available over the internet anything determined to be "obscene...regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication." This ban includes all forms of electronic communication, from telephone calls to file transfer protocol sites (computers on the internet that contain files available to the public for copying) to private e-mail messages. In the original version of the bill, penalties also applied to internet service providers (including universities) whose facilities were used for "obscene" communications; however, after heavy lobbying by CompuServe, America On-Line, and other large internet services, those portions of the bill were stricken. Even in its weakened form, though, Senate bill 314 poses a significant threat to the continued growth of the internet and to constitutional rights.
From music to television, censorship has played a major role in how the public is exposed to certain material. Now that our world is entering into a new technology era, the Internet is now in the middle of the censorship issue. Internet access is now one of the fastest ways to communicate with others, obtain information on virtually anything, and purchase items without having to leave your home. As more and more people get connected to this cyber superhighway, concern for the content of material has become a big issue. Since so many children are exposed to the Internet, some material should not be accessible with a simple click of a mouse. In order to protect our younger people from being exposed to mature and explicit material over the Internet, these sites should have a warning posted before one can go into the site.
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
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” - George Washington. Freedom of speech is one of the universal declarations of human right, created on the 10th of December 1948. It is the complete opposite of what censorship of the internet entails. “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority and regardless of frontiers.” Censorship of the internet not only goes directly against this, but it prevents a free flow of information, our ability to communicate as a society and places governments in control of our rights of expression.
On the contrary, the general public may argue that net neutrality is unnecessary because government control and regulation of the internet will provide a safer environment for users. According to M.C. Riley, “ISPs —instead of users— chose that lawful content, applications and services can be exchanged, offered and utilized. Existing possible services might become largely inoperable, and new services might thank never get off the ground, particularly if they compete with services offered by network operators” (Cleland and Riley 22). In the absence of net neutrality, ISPs can control and regulate content on the Internet, resulting on certain services becoming inoperable. Government control and regulation of the internet has provided a safer environment
E-Jurisdiction (or the lack thereof)… At the beginning of a new century, the Internet Revolution is upon us. At the turn of the last century, when the Revolution was Industrial instead of Virtual, the courts and legislatures struggled to enact policies to keep pace with the changing times and technologies. Laws governing labor practices, trade practices, anti-trust regulations, and even intellectual property all developed in reaction to the surges of the new industrialized world. So too, in this new E-world, lawmakers are now attempting to quell the erosion wrought by the powerful Digital wave on our existing legal systems. Whether by adapting old mores to fit new paradigms, or by creating new standards with which to judge novel issues, lawmakers of the new millennium face overwhelming challenges in confronting the growing expanse of cyberspace. One such challenge is how to address the issue of Jurisdiction over disputes in a new global marketplace where the only boundaries are bandwidth. This paper will discuss some of the problems of E-Jurisdiction and present some possible solutions. "The unique nature of the Internet highlights the likelihood that a single actor might be subject to haphazard, uncoordinated, and even outright inconsistent regulation by states that the actor never intended to reach and possibly was unaware were being accessed. Typically, states' jurisdictional limits are related to geography; geography, however, is a virtually meaningless construct on the Internet." American Library Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp 160 (SDNY 1997). I. Problems with traditional jurisdiction analyses Traditionally, U.S. Courts have exercised jurisdiction only over those who h...
Over time the internet has influenced the world majorly. Thousands of people of all ages depend greatly on the internet. The internet is used in many ways some different then others but overall is a necessity to today’s world. As we all know the internet has many websites filled with many different topics, however not all topics can be seen due to censorship. Censorship is when one cannot view a website as they wish because it had been blocked.
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.
The Darknet is a place where criminals and terrorists go to collude about how they can make the world and the people in it bend to their will, right? Wrong. While most people see the Darknet as a place where malicious individuals lurk and try to drag good, hard-working people down to their level, that is not all there is to it, nothing is that black and white anymore. In David Kushner’s Rolling Stone article, “The Darknet: Is the Government Destroying the Wild West of the Internet?”, the Darknet is introduced as a place where individuals, both good and bad, can browse the web anonymously without worrying about governments or advertisement agencies following their every move. True to his title, Kushner explores the topic of the government’s