Net Neutrality Research

Content and internet service providers spoke out as well, increasing the need for some kind of legislation. Various forms of the original guiding principles were proposed as net neutrality legislation; however none of them were passed. Due to the growth of the debate and increasing numbers of complaints, the FCC has proposed their latest set of guidelines called, “preserving the open internet”, to be voted on as net neutrality legislation. Content providers such as Amazon.com, Disney, Facebook, eBay, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo, and voice over internet protocol company’s like Vonage and Skype, as well as educational or public interest groups such as Educause, Internet2, ACE, Regional Optical Networks, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are all in favor of passing the “preserving the open internet” legislation. Then there are those against “preserving the open internet” legislation such as telecommunications and cable companies like AT&T, BellSouth, Verizon, Cablevision, Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, Charter Communications, and hardware manufacturers such as Cisco, Nortel, and VeriSign (Greenfield, 2006).

With the increased access for individuals to allow their messages and ideas to be heard on a larger scale (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc.), more and more individuals are becoming more aware of the major events and milestones behind Network Neutrality. Large companies have invested a lot of money on the infrastructure that makes up the basis of what we know to be as the internet, and it makes sense that they should have some sort of say in what goes on. With the complexity and vastness of the internet, it is hard to create legislation that effectively protects the internet in what it is today, and not offend others in the process. The events in the most recent years have brought forth an increased amount of public and media attention on the subject, and has been the center of a large number of debates. Throughout all of these debates, the general public opinion has been that “Public opinion was overwhelming pro net neutrality” (KnightFoundation, 5). What this meant was that the general public was beginning to catch onto the general idea of Network Neutrality, and were starting to side with those much more for rather than

Net neutrality is one of the major issues the US is facing today. It is a very complicated matter between FCC and cable companies. Net neutrality is a principle that all online traffic should be treated equally. However, cable companies do not agree with this principle. They want to introduce an idea called fast lane. This is where customers are required to pay extra money to maintain high speed internet, but the internet speed remain the same. All they are doing is reducing the speeds for others who don’t pay extra and overall speed remains the same. For example, a car can be driven on a highway with speed limit 70mph. If we introduce the idea of fast lane, all we are doing is reducing the speed limit to 30mph for people who don’t pay extra.

In this field, competition refers to network owners (ISP). Their differential in pricing and control of information alters the competition. Anti-competitive acts by network owners would be barred due to the impact of net neutrality (St. Petersburg). The major companies (telecom and cable) could enforce a fee for faster Internet or prefer content that is associated with their partnered conglomerates. The cause would be a halt in innovation and end up giving larger companies the power to nudge aside the smaller start-ups from expanding (Linux Journal). Also, net neutrality saves the internet as an ideal marketplace. For the previous 10 years, the Internet has been a public marketplace where privatized companies are able to expand and grow, and this reputation will continue to serve (Opposing Views). More importantly, without net neutrality in affect, price discrimination risks start-ups from emerging out of their cocoons. Net neutrality once paved the concept of free market endeavors. Without these regulations, innovators are at the hands of network owners and building new online entrepreneurships or

Erasing net neutrality would stifle innovation, and allows large ISPs to piggyback off of the prosperity that a previously neutral Internet had. If these rules were in place before Alphabet or Facebook or Netflix or Amazon existed, it is hard to believe those companies would have been able to secure the funds to get through the paywall to consumers, which demonstrates that these attempts to destroy Net Neutrality are little more than an excuse to ask successful companies to pay more and disregard the ramifications to any possible future companies or the history that made certain companies

Net neutrality is an issue that has gained traction within the past few years. The reading brought to light the deeper, issues associated with the information services and wired infrastructure. The debate at its core is about ISPs. Due to issues involved with ISPs invoking price discrimination against media providers, issues have arisen about data caps, bit-torrent throttling, and the classification structure. While changes can be made to the law to negate these unethical practices, laws need to be well thought out to include the current issues and issues that may arise within the foreseeable future. One could state that no isp’s shall require data providers to pay a higher fee for the ‘fast lane’. However, then the isp’s could require their

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

Network prioritization can be based off of monetary influence, political perspective, or even something as simple as the company's opinion of another business. As described by Steven Kovach, "It will also likely leave you [small companies] higher prices and fewer choices." (Kovach).

Net Neutrality otherwise known as internet neutrality is the principle by which basic internet protocols should not be discriminatory and content providers should be equally treated by internet operators. It says your internet service providers should not be allowed to block or degrade access to certain websites or services, nor should it be allowed to set aside a “fast lane” that allows content favored by the internet service provider to load more quickly than the rest. Regardless of the amount of traffic transpiring, companies such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast should treat all traffic in the same manner.

Net neutrality is the principle that supports free speech on the internet and allows us our right to freely communicate online (Singel, 2017). Net neutrality restricts major internet service providers, such as AT&T and CenturyLink, from discriminating upon certain online data because of content. Without net neutrality, these internet service providers would have the power to block or decrease the speed of specific internet content (Reardon, 2015). The providers would also be capable of charging money from internet users who want to access particular websites or data within websites. Websites that receive a large amount of users on a daily basis, such as Twitter and YouTube, would be given faster data speeds than less visited websites. This would lead to large companies monopolizing internet content, which would impact the way we browse online in a negative way. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets restrictions and regulations for broadcast, telephone and cable communications in the United States of America. The FCC is attempting to put an end to net neutrality. The vote to do so will take place on December 14, 2017. Ajit Pai, the current chairman of the FCC, is a former employee of Verizon Wireless. Verizon is one of the major internet service providers which would greatly benefit from net neutrality being abolished. Many questions have been raised concerning Pai’s past connections with Verizon, and a numerous amount of individuals believe that this is why Pai is pushing an end to net neutrality. Companies like eBay and Amazon will be required to pay more money to the major internet service providers in order to receive faster data speeds and better user efficiency. This would eventually lead to consumers having to pay more money for their performed endeavors online. The internet service providers would also have the potential to bundle websites into packages. Consumers would then have to purchase these packages in order to access specific websites. This is extremely similar to how DirecTV, Dish Network and other cable providers offer packages for television channels. Tom Wheeler is the former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. Wheeler expressed his thoughts on

If there is no net neutrality, ISPs will have the power to mold internet traffic according to their preferences so that they can derive extra benefit from it. For example, several Internet service providers believe that they should be allowed to charge extra from companies like YouTube and Netflix because these services consume more bandwidth in comparison to a normal website. Basically, these ISPs want a share in the earning that YouTube or Netflix make

Opponents of Net Neutrality argue that because service providers are in a competitive industry, they have plenty of reasons to provide the best service possible, and that the government should let market forces dictate the results of network regulation. Currently the U.S. Government is examining Net Neutrality and its financial, legal and social implications. This begs the questions of whether or not all this is this going to boil down into being an issue which needs federal involvement to guarantee equality, or an issue for the market to work through.

Many Americans are hung up on fighting for Gay Rights or arguing about what side we should stand on the Israel conflict or even what they should watch on Netflix tonight. However, what they don’t realize they should be worrying about is Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is, “the concept that broadband Internet service providers should provide nondiscriminatory access to internet content, platforms, etc., and should not manipulate the transfer of data regardless of its source or destination” (dictionary.com). Originally gaining a lot of attention back in 2004-2005 when Dialup internet was being replaced by broadband internet, most people have again recently heard about it, but never take the time to figure out

The controversy, at the moment, rests on a legal distinction. A federal lawsuit filed by Verizon has forced the FCC into a corner by creating a standard under which effective net-neutrality rules­­—which ensure all internet traffic is treated equally—can only be reached, according to most analysts, by classifying the internet as a "common carrier," or in other words, a public utility. Such a distinction would allow the FCC to demand that internet service providers, like Comcast or Verizon, are not allowed to

Net neutrality has been one of the hottest topics in the last few weeks, with talks of a repeal approaching. Many have gone as far as to call the repeal the end of the internet as we know it. Net neutrality is the idea that all data on the internet should be treated with the same priority. They believe that repealing net neutrality will result in a loss in privacy and slower internet speeds. By putting the power back into private companies rather than the government the opposite will occur instead.