In 2005, Vonage, a phone company that transmits telephone calls over the internet or voice over internet protocol, complains to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about an unknown service provider blocking their telephone service. The FCC investigated the complaint and found that Madison River, a telephone company, was responsible and ordered them to stop blocking data sent from Vonage (Higginbotham, 2010). This incident was one of the first cases of an internet service provider discriminating against data sent over the internet because Vonage and Madison River are competing telephone service companies. Because of this, the FCC proposed a set of principles which sparked the beginning of net neutrality legislation that has been submitted to Congress over the past few years (Higginbotham, 2010). “Preserving the open internet” is the latest net neutrality legislation and aims to set some basic rules in order to maintain fairness on the internet for consumers, businesses, content providers, and service providers. Public interest groups and content providers fear tiered pricing structures and data discrimination and hope “Preserving the open internet” legislation is passed to protect them, while internet service providers argue they need to maximize their network efficiency and profitability to produce innovative products and services and stand against the proposed “Preserving the open internet” legislation.
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
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 should be required by law. Many people have raised concerns about the power that
The internet has grown immensely ever since it first started around the time August of 1960 when it was just a proof of concept at MIT. Now the internet is felt like it is a necessity, we must be able to access it all of the time with our smart phones with no more that the fastest speeds possible. The idea of net neutrality is to keep the internet free, and not to priorities speeds for companies who will pay more for it. Consequentialism and the justice theory are helping fight the argument on wither it is wright or wrong. Net neutrality is an idea that needs to be keep because it gives everyone the same chance of accomplishing goals on the internet and freedom of speech.
There has been no previous issue overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that has ever come close to provoking as much attention as the FCC’s 2014 Open Internet Rulemaking (Mehta, 2015). “Net Neutrality”, the term which prohibits the discrimination of Internet data by the telephone and cable companies based on type of content, source of content, device on which it is accessed etc. is wrangling around for quite some time now. It is only after more than a decade of rigorous discussions, lawsuits and power changes at the FCC that a decision was made in favor of net neutrality on February 26, 2015.
Many Americans today rely on the Internet for two main reasons: information and connectivity. Some may consider it as the biggest library available because of the endless information it can provide. It further enhanced people’s knowledge of what’s going on all around the globe and has been proved to be a very powerful tool that is available for anyone to use. Communication improved not just here in the United States of America, but also in other countries thanks to social media. Despite of all this, there is still an evident problem for American citizens when it comes to Internet Regulation. There’s an apparent government intervention when it comes to regulating the Internet. Under net neutrality, companies shouldn’t restrict what and how much information or media users can access. Every citizen deserves Internet freedom, which is also tied with privacy and the identity of the people using the Internet. The government should protect its citizens from the threats of the Internet like bullying and stalking, and fraud or theft issues like compromised credit card or bank account information from phishing websites and hackers.
One of the nicknames for the Internet when it was first released to the public was the “information superhighway”. The name came to be because the Internet provides the average person with fast access to a limitless amount of data. For many, this is the type of Internet that they have grown to love and rely on while for others, the information superhighway is slowed by major roadblocks in the form of Internet censorship. With the Internet being relatively new, the contradictory messages that both governments and corporations are sending to the public are being strictly scrutinized. Roughly 2.5 billion people currently use the Internet and another 2.5 billion individuals are expected to go online by the end of this decade (Negroponte). The Freedom House predicts that most of the people that are connecting to the Internet for the first time will be in countries where speech freedom is severely censored; entire families could be thrown in jail or worse (Schmidt). There is an insidious world war currently underway but it is very easy to lose sight of it even though the stakes are enormous. There is a silent reminder with every stroke of the keyboard, that there is a war over the control of the Internet. Despite the controversy surrounding Internet censorship, the fact that governments could potentially censor things they deem undesirable could take away from the fundamental freedom not only nationally but internationally as well.
But, it is also important to note that all of this could have been avoided if the Federal Communications Commission had the foresight to call broadband providers "common carriers." A common carrier easily falls under Title II of the Communications Act. But, under the decision, any Net Neutrality anti-blocking rules are deemed unlawful. So, the Federal Communications Commission does not have the authority to impose or enforce rules that would give the free market favor against the politically and economically powerful network provider.
"The government should not be in charge of the internet. The reason why that the government should not be in charge of our network is because, if the government would be in charge of our network it would not be fair for some people because the government would say everybody has to pay more money and would have to pay more in taxes. Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. Instead of trying to regulate the Internet, these rules should be repealed in order to promote competition and innovation in the broadband market, which will result in more choices and better products for Americans at lower prices. Example when there is a big family and they use netflix, youtube, and hulu a lot and then there is one person that lives by him/her selves lives and donâ€™t use those websites that much the government would make the one person pay as much as the big family would.