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.
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 ...
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
Additionally, as can be seen with the preceding cases, load on the existing network infrastructure is often cited as a cause for many breaches of net neutrality. Companies also often use the justification that throttling can be acceptable due to the illegal content of some data over certain protocols. Furthermore, ISP’s and political theorists make the argument that upholding net neutrality or signing it into law would stifle competition between the service providers themselves due to the difficulty in recouping costs from building infrastructure and the inability to control the load. Opponents of net neutrality tend to be the providers themselves in most cases, and they lobby politicians to push against regulation in this
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
The Net Neutrality debate, or more appropriately the non-net neutrality debate, was first sparked by Ed Whitacre, the Chief Executive Officer of ATT in 2005 after his statement, “Now what [content providers] would like to do is use my pipes for free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it” (Kramer).
...s article “Ma Bell’s Revenge: The battle for Network Neutrality” shows us in a just a few of the hundreds of arguments which have been brought up over the proposal of network neutrality. Network neutrality essentially means that all data gets treated the same by an ISP or service, whether it be an incoming email or a gigantic video file, it’s is based on the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they choose to use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. In other words, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet in terms of overall speed. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.
Imagine having to pay an extra $10 a month just so Netflix would stream fast enough for you to watch movies, or being an app developer and having to pay AT&T millions of dollars just so your customers can access your app on their network. These are the types of things that are prohibited through Net neutrality regulations. Net neutrality is the principle that all the traffic on the internet must be treated without discrimination, be it commercial or political. On December, 14, 2017, The Federal Communications Commision voted to implement chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to end Net Neutrality, removing the regulations that protect us from the shady profit seeking ways of powerful telecommunication giants. The protection of these regulations is imperative
The idea of net neutrality is not something that has come out of nowhere. Throughout the history of the United States, it has been the job of the federal government to break trusts (large corporations/monopolies or near monopolies) or prevent them from forming. This became an important part of the government because it was done to protect consumers from the companies and promote competition between companies. Currently the market of telecommunications is controlled by large corporations with hundreds of small daughter corporations that they control. According to a report done by the FCC on competition in the telecommunications market, 98.8% of the wireless market is controlled by only four companies, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint (Federal
In this article, journalist Tali Arbel from the Associated Press explains the implications of the recent decision on Net Neutrality. In December, the FCC voted to overturn Net Neutrality, a set of laws dictating that all data on the internet must be treated equally by internet providers. Arbel goes on to say that without Net Neutrality protections, internet providers such as Verizon, Comcast, and the like will have the power to charge services like Amazon more for faster access to customers, as well as slow down or block content they disagree with. Arbel then lists the responses of the largest internet providers when asked whether they would consider using this new power. According to Arbel, “Three said they had ‘no plans’ for paid prioritization,
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
The concept of Net Neutrality is one with large amounts of controversy behind it. The idea that the internet would give certain types of traffic priority, such as web page requests over video streaming, is necessary to support network growth while others stake the claim that giving this priority undermines the established internet principles of free speech and non-exclusivity. The Federal Communications Commission has put policies in place to strive to a more neutral internet, one such policy being the Open Internet Order. There is heavy debate over whether the internet should be neutral and around whether or not there should be regulations in place to dictate what contents can travel faster than others can. We will be working for Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) in support of net neutrality. Markey argues that net neutrality law is the “Declaration of Independence for the Internet,” where restrictions set on certain types of content on the internet do not limit freedom of expression.
Net neutrality is an issue that has been brought up several times throughout the years but is currently resurfacing as Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, plans to have it repealed. Voting for this decision will take place on the 14th. Before delving too deeply into the topic, let's define net neutrality. It’s the principle that companies that connect consumers to the internet cannot block any content. They must make all content available at the same speed, meaning they can't slow the loading speed of one site over another, treating everything equally. If net neutrality is voted to be repealed, this will cause major issues for consumers in the months to come.
"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 don’t use those websites that much the government would make the one person pay as much as the big family would.
Why should we be worried about the open internet? In the early 1990’s modern internet was introduced. After the increase in traffic flow (internet use) many large IPS (Internet Service Providers) were caught slowing data from popular websites to thousands of US businesses and residential customers in dozens of cities across the country. As a result, the Obama administration insisted on new Net Neutrality rules, meaning IPS’s could not block different websites or apps, slowing of services, or no discrimination amongst companies, which is causing many debates and concerns. Net Neutrality is the guiding principles for an open internet. The freedom of the web is in danger, and as the consumers we must preserve the freedom of the open internet. Substantial Internet Service Suppliers are attempting to hinder the internet and raise charges for Americans to use the web and only the American consumers can restrict them from having complete control. Without net neutrality the open internet could fall into the
In recent events, net neutrality has been under attack by the modern telecommunications companies from our age. The attacks threaten the future of the internet which includes free speech, innovation, and social, economic balance of the affected country which is the United States of America.