Net Neutrality Case Study

The second video “Moyers & Company: Is Net Neutrality Dead?” is about a debate regarding net neutrality, which is the right to communicate freely online, keeping the major internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast from increasing costs for costumers to not slow down or block any content they want to use, also called price discrimination, a service offered at different prices by the same provider in different markets. As there are only few internet providers, barriers are set by limiting the area where some of them are allowed to supply their services to, limiting competition and increasing costs for consumers.

Schewick begins the argument supporting the idea of implicating net neutrality rules to allows the free use of the internet without internet service providers controlling what is available. She explains that providers wish to create a controlled system where they can modify content and application through

Our group’s topic is net neutrality. The reason for choosing net neutrality as the focus of our project is because it is a current topic in our country that is being debated about, thus making it controversial. Because the recent repeal on net neutrality affects the majority of the people living in the United States, the action cannot simply be ignored. Our group had many intentions in choosing our topic. First off, we want to explain what net neutrality is in order to get rid of any misconceptions about it. Then, we want to illustrate the effect of repealing net neutrality would have in our country. Most importantly, we feel the need to express our opinion on net neutrality and let the audience know that the repeal on net neutrality was a

It is often regarded as the notion that, the broadband service provider should charge customers only for Internet access without any form of discrimination or favoritism on content viewed by end-users from their respective content providers. The concept of “Net Neutrality” is intended to regulate price and promote competition. Simply put, it is a premised on the principle that all Internet traffic must be treated equally without bias. “Opponents of the Net neutrality on the other hand, see bandwidth as a private resource, one that is supplied most efficiently if exclusive owners take responsibility for managing and conserving it, and are able to optimize its value by exerting control over the content and application it conveys” (Yoo,

In the article, “Net neutrality hits a nerve, eliciting intense reactions”, Cecilia Kang discusses how the pending repeal of Net Neutrality by the FCC and Chairman, Ajit Pai, is adamantly contested by most of the Internet community and most companies, big or small. To develop her argument, Kang uses a wide variety of appeals from established and startup companies, statistics and evidence related to the reaction to the repeal, and demonstrations on how polarizing the issue is, and the repeal’s effect on solving the problem of Internet regulation. Kang cites a multitude of Internet-based companies or organizations, such as Mozilla, Google, Netflix, and Free Press, to demonstrate their concern and clarify their resentment of the repeal. For instance, Google and Netflix argued that “telecom companies should not be able to split sites because that would allow them to become a sort of gatekeeper.” These responses better clarify companies’ concerns about the repeal and its effect on their business, while also aiding Kang in developing her article on explaining the concern and the response it has elicited. According to Kang,

At the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this year, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler told his audience, “John Oliver took the ultimate arcane issue, Title II, and made it something that got people interested. And that’s good.” (Macri, Guiseppe) Mr. Wheeler was referring to a segment by John Oliver, comedian, political satirist which aired June 2014 in which Mr. Oliver cleverly explains Net Neutrality and why it is important to each of us. “During his 13-minute segment, Oliver name-checked Netflix, Google, Usain Bolt, Superman, the game Monopoly, and Mein Kampf, and compared the FCC hiring former cable company lobbyists to ‘needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo.’” (Brody, Ben) (John Oliver on Net Neutrality, can be seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU.) He concludes by telling his audience that the FCC is now accepting comments on the matter and encourages us to take advantage of the FCC’s invitation. He then provides the web address. The following day, the FCC receives 45,000 comments resulting from Oliver’s show, which crashes their website. (Macri, Guiseppe)

Berners-Lee questions whether America “[wants] a web where cable companies determine winners and losers online?” and cable companies are able to “decide which opinions we read”. To an extreme level, cable companies would be able to determine “which creative ideas succeed” (Berners-Lee 2). This opposes the freedom that American citizens strive for. It puts a limits the equal opportunity that so Americans find so important. Furthermore, “the change would allow internet-service providers to throttle some online traffic and allow companies to pay extra for faster delivery of their content” (Martinez & Hoisington). Without net neutrality, internet-service providers would be able to smother small or upcoming businesses by limiting their audience. However, the impact of the repeal of net neutrality does not stop here. The repeal of net neutrality “also eliminates several other consumer protections, such as a requirement that ISPs be more transparent with customers about hidden fees and the consequences of exceeding data caps” (Brodkin 1). Repealing net neutrality would deregulate internet-service providers, allowing them to have far too much control over their

Back in 2006, Aaron Weiss, a technology writer and web developer, noted that, “The real fight over network neutrality isn’t between the telecoms and their end users—it’s with the major content providers, who now hold the largest bankrolls” (Weiss 25). Today, that is truer than ever. Content providers that have become immensely popular over the last decade, like Netflix and Google, want immunity from bandwidth restrictions and fees, because users want fast accessibility to these sites. The idea of no bandwidth restrictions is appealing to them because when they “can charge consumers directly, the only regulation that results in a change in their payoffs is strong net neutrality. Thus, moving from any other regime to strong net neutrality, increases the profits of the content provider that attracts consumer attention…By contrast, in the absence of strong net neutrality, that marginal surplus is appropriated by the ISP” (Gans

With network neutrality as such a heavily debated and controversial topic, there exists a large number of literature and viewpoints on the topic. This paper discusses the viewpoints brought up within an article authored by two people. The article acts as a debate between the authors, containing points and counter points, and this paper goes over the main ideas and conclusions brought up within the article, while acting as a good overview for the reader to start their search for their own personal conclusions.

As previously stated, net neutrality is a complex subject and it has many layers. One issue of major of concern is that of “fast lanes” and the establishment of net neutrality would prevent ISPs from forming these types of connections. Simplified, a fast lane is line of service that provides faster upload and download speeds. A fast lane would allow ISPs to charge companies such as Netflix, Skype, PlayStation Plus, and other streaming services for faster connections that would allow consumers to access the services easier and faster. Proponents of net neutrality worry that the extra expenses for fast lanes could become a formidable challenge for startups and small business owners. Large corporations typically

Throughout the last decade, the idea of Net Neutrality has been the topic of many debates. Net Neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers should not be allowed to block their users from any content regardless of its source. The Debate is still continuing in 2017 with the F.C.C planning to repeal Net Neutrality and allow internet providers to completely regulate what their users can see and charge the users extra for “luxuries” such as social media, messaging, email, and music. There are two sides of this argument, one side believes that Net Neutrality should be taken away, while others believe that it is unfair for the Internet providers to have the right to take away the access to any content. Internet providers should not be allowed to control what content one can view when surfing the internet.

With the thought of American citizens being in control of their lives still in mind, it seems that the government is truly trying to tell its citizens how to live, since the repeal of internet neutrality would affect the free market system in negative ways; as a result, people’s financial lives would also be affected in negative ways. For example, according to page 15 of Alan Joch’s article, “Debating Net Neutrality,” internet service providers could do something similar as companies like Google in which they can charge advertisers to show certain results when a person looks up something similar to their focus. If net neutrality does come to an end, then situations like that will indeed happen. Therefore, net neutrality needs to be maintained because those situations would disrupt the economic system and the supposed fairness that is guaranteed by it. It would allow for the wealthier companies to further present their services and leave the smaller competitors in the dark. And, because internet neutrality’s repeal would allow internet providers and the government to essentially spy on everyone, “Various types of analytical applications could give broadband providers an efficient way to slice and dice their customers’ usage data, and thus gives ISPs an opportunity to argue that they’re able to place ads as precisely tuned to individual users’ interests as those inserted by search companies” (Joch 15). That statement further proves as to why ending net neutrality is a bad idea. It shows that not only will the government and the wealthy business people that run the internet know what everyone is doing, but it also shows how they would practically control the economy by choosing whether they want to show certain business’s ads or not. And, what is even worse is that they will have control of what is seen, and they can claim that the results they show are unique to the person and what they have looked up, which essentially leaves smaller competitors without hope. Now, according to Timothy J. Tardiff, in his article, “NET NEUTRALITY: ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF MARKET DEVELOPMENTS,” the end of internet neutrality would be a positive thing because people would have the option to pay for better options or services when it

Net Neutrality is essential to our everyday lives, and it is perilously close to being repealed on December 14th by the FCC; but if more people take a stand in support of Net Neutrality, we can preserve the free internet. Net Neutrality needs to be saved because it protects free speech, free trade of information and services, and the privacy of our data. This is an issue that concerns all citizens regardless of political affiliation, but lawmakers have made it a fight between the two parties. Most people did not care about Net Neutrality or even know what it is until fairly recently, but recent events regarding it's likely repeal have turned the public’s attention towards it.

The concept of network neutrality (more commonly referred to as net neutrality) has been a fixture of debates over United States telecommunications policy throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century. Based upon the principle that internet access should not be altered or restricted by the Internet Service Provider (ISP) one chooses to use, it has come to represent the hopes of those who believe that the internet still has the potential to radically transform the way in which we interact with both people and information, in the face of the commercial interests of ISPs, who argue that in order to sustain a competitive marketplace for internet provision, they must be allowed to differentiate their services. Whilst this debate has

Open and equal internet services benefit all social classes by eliminating premium access and giving everyone the same internet speeds. FCC stated that they are allowed to regulate broadband services (“Net Neutrality” 2). Internet providers are saying if people are using their equipment and cables they are allowed to set limits or prices as they please (“Net Neutrality” 1). “It shouldn’t be regulated if the market has many companies that the public can pick from” Wheeler stated (“Net Neutrality” 2). In other words, Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC discourages regulating Internet speeds (“Net Neutrality” 2). “Rather than guarding against market abuses by dominant firms, the rules have been invoked in attempts to hinder innovation, impede