Net Neutrality Research Paper

Net Neutrality is allowing users to free and open access of internet irrespective of sources or internet providers demanding special charges in order to use services provided by them. Now a days Internet is one of the essential part for everyday communication in life. Several services were used in our day to day life for example GPS tracking, google, Wikipedia, Netflix etc., and we can’t imagine a day without the internet. Internet Service providers combining with corporations were utilizing this and trying to make profit out of this by imposing more charges on the user in order to utilize the services needed for him with more speed and flexibility. There are several discussions and debates supporting and opposing net neutrality.

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.

With over a billion users the internet is one of the most used services in the world. However, this vast idea, that gives one so much freedom, is slowly loosing its value. The article "Point/Counterpoint: Network Neutrality Nuances” by Barbara van Schewick is a brilliant writing with minor flaws to explain this issue. While, Schewick introduces the idea of Network Neutrality well and keeps the flow of the article consistent, she uses too many unnecessary examples to portray a point.

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.

One of the greatest factors threatening the Internet today is the attempt to dismantle net neutrality. Net neutrality is the idea of an open Internet, one on which people can freely communicate online; some Internet service providers, however, want the right to block or discriminate against any applications or content from which said companies gain no profit. If net neutrality is destroyed, then private corporations have free reign in throttling the sharing of information and of services for their consumers. This would cause private corporations to hold all the business, and we would all become consumers, simply taking what the corporations provide. Not only would this be an assault on the consumer’s right to choose, but this would completely

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 emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web brought upon a medium of communication with a range of opportunities for the world. However, this medium is, in due course, subject to the control of a few major companies. The enigma of information flow is the central concern of net neutrality. Consumers, competition and network owners would benefit directly from the regulation of network neutrality because it would provide a positive impact to those parties as well as provide equality.

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

Senator Al Franken of Minnesota calls net neutrality a “First Amendment issue of our time.”1 The lack of discrimination of data has allowed the internet to remain open and free for anyone to contribute. Net Neutrality provides opportunity for small business owners, startups, and entrepreneurs.2 It keeps the barrier for entry low, safeguarding a level playing field whether a small blog or multibillion dollar company is being operated. Preserved is the ability to innovate simply with a great

In “Point/Counterpoint Network Neutrality Nuances,” Barbara van Schewick highlights the importance of internet to society and argues how the network providers discriminate the Network Neutrality rules. Although the author’s perspective in her qualitative research is informative and insightful, the article fails to bring a well-structured argument. Inconsistent use of commas, lengthy examples, and immoderate focus on bolded headings along with footnotes make the writer's viewpoint and reason difficult to comprehend.

Internet.org is against principal of net neutrality mark Mark Zuckerberg is lobbying hard for that, FB wants to do business in name of charity for the poors. Great Going. I hope and wish India Achieve and become digital India without Internet.org, if we really want some google,facebook or whatsapp kind of Internet enterprise to be born from India.

Over 280 million people could have something really unique changed from their lives and not even be aware of it (United States Internet Users, n.d.). Internet users in the United States are faced with a problem that could change the Internet as they know it. As Eric Schmidt (2006) CEO of Google puts it “Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight." This is because Net neutrality is at risk from Internet service providers who want the ability to charge for what they call a “fast lane” on the Internet and the FCC is making it possible for this to happen. Net neutrality is the principle which states that no bit of information should be prioritized over another and that Internet service providers, or ISPs, are to be completely detached from what information is

Clearly, this only decades-old invention has had the most profound impact on human life since penicillin, but already people want to abuse the internet's power for personal gain. Amoral Internet Service Providers such as Comcast and Time Warner have and likely will continue to restrict the internet for monetary or otherwise self-preserving gains. The most recent threat to the internet's capabilities is the United States Federal Communications Commission’s Chairman Tom Wheeler's alleged proposal that will

The usage and access to the Internet are very low in many areas due to some factors: ethnic, geographic, economic or societal. For instance, people who live in the rural area have limited access to the internet. Individuals who live in urban areas with high income and educated are adopting new technologies faster and are always connecting. Unfortunately, the distribution of resources among people and societies is already heavily unbalanced, and to access to information technology is even worst. The growing gap between the underprivileged and privileged citizens is a global concern that continues growing at an alarming rate around the world. According to William Kennard, the Chair of the FCC, "In a society where increasingly we are defined by access to information and what we earn is what we learn, if you don't have access to technology, you're going to be left in the digital dark ages” (Digital). Hence, the governments must subsidize internet access for low-income individuals and create community access centers with well-trained staff. Moreover, the private sector must provide equal service and network to rural areas and the creation of more computer clubs for underprivileged communities

In the United States the Internet is the first place that everyone goes to when they want to get information. The Internet provides everything that anyone could possibly want and on the Internet everyone is considered as equals. That can quickly all go away. The only way to keep the Internet the way it is, is to preserve Internet neutrality. Internet neutrality, also known as network neutrality, is “defined broadly, is non- discriminatory interconnectedness among data communication networks that allows users to access the content and to run the services, applications, and devices of their choice" (Meinrath, Pickard 1). This means that the Internet is not restricted and the government or Internet service providers have no rule over how the Internet is run or what people can and can’t access over the Internet. Internet neutrality allows for “a neutral or open Internet, [...] where all websites [..] load at the same (relative) speed, and each user, after paying their ISP a flat fee, receives an all access pass to digital