The internet is one of the most freely used resources and is easily accessible by anyone. It is the one place where there should be rules or guidelines, but in reality there exists very little. Preserving the openness of the internet and retaining internet freedom are the driving forces behind “Net Neutrality.” Under this principle, consumers are free to choose what applications and services to use and they can decide what legal content to access, create, host or share such as photos, videos, social networks, music, blogs, and websites. The openness promotes healthy competition, encourages investors to allocate capital/stock in online ventures/innovations or launch new applications.
Net Neutrality, a term coined by Columbia University law
…show more content…
AT&T had their abuse of the internet during an August 2007 concert. The band playing was Pearl Jam. The lead singer was an anti-Bush supporter and during the concert, he substituted some of the song lyrics with his lyrics. His lyrics were against Bush and AT&T was in charge of the concert. AT&T blocked the streaming of the concert and they blamed it on “excessive profanity”. His own lyrics did not contain profanity. His lyrics were “George Bush, leave this world alone” and “George Bush find yourself another home." His lyrics did not even mention profanity and it shocked the lead singer. After that, AT&T blamed it on the censorship on an external website contractor hired to watch the stream. They called “it being a mistake” and rereleased the stream with the lead singer’s lyrics (ACLU). The last point is what happened to the FCC rules and the argument against Net …show more content…
appeals court threw out the federal rules requiring that all broadband providers treat the internet traffic equally. Verizon brought up the court case and convinced the three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to strike down the rules. The reasoning was that the FCC chained the broadband providers with the same ruling as traditional “common carrier” telecommunication services, for example the landline phone systems (Nagesh), even though the FCC did not decide to classify broadband as a telecom service (FCC). Thomas W. Hazlett wrote a book bringing up points why Net Neutrality is not needed, in his book “The Fallacy of Net Neutrality”, he says “Even should the rules succeed…this is a clear possibility, as the very point of the rules is to constrain ISPS, limiting their pricing and packaging decisions.” (Hazlett) Another argument is, “If edge markets have flourished, it is in large measure because market forces have supported investment in infrastructure.” (Hazlett) We put our investment, or money, into an internet provider and if they do not satisfy us, we could move our investment into another internet provider. The market is open with multiple choices. “The network of networks, a diverse, interconnected set of systems, spontaneously evolves. Economic structures are not planned administratively but emerge according to the interplay of competitive forces.” (Hazlett)
Of particular importance is the deregulation of the telecommunications industry as mentioned in the act (“Implementation of the Telecommunications Act,” NTLA). This reflects a new thinking that service providers should not be limited by artificial and now antique regulatory categories but should be permitted to compete with each other in a robust marketplace that contains many diverse participants. Moreover the Act is evidence of governmental commitment to make sure that all citizens have access to advanced communication services at affordable prices through its “universal service” provisions even as competitive markets for the telecommunications industry expand. Prior to passage of this new Act, U.S. federal and state laws and a judicially established consent decree allowed some competition for certain services, most notably among long distance carriers. Universal service for basic telephony was a national objective, but one developed and shaped through federal and state regulations and case law (“Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Technology Law). The goal of universal service was referred to only in general terms in the Communications Act of 1934, the nation's basic telecommunications statute. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 among other things: (i) opens up competition by local telephone companies, long distance providers, and cable companies ...
When we think of those skilled in the art of rhetoric, we often jump to those we know are trying to convince us of something, like politicians, salesmen, lawyers, etc. We do not always consider corporate CEOs part of that group though Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings, would have us believing another thing. On March 20th, 2014, Hastings published an article titled “Internet Tolls And The Case For Strong Net Neutrality” on Netflix’s official blog. Just under a month before the blog was posted, Netflix settled a deal paying Comcast, America’s largest cable and Internet service provider (ISP), for faster and more reliable service to Comcast’s subscribers (Cohen and Wyatt). These “internet tolls” go against the culture of net neutrality in America, which in its essence is when no piece of information is prioritized over another on broadband networks. Hastings took to their blog to advocate for net neutrality and against abusive ISPs. Whether he was conscious of his rhetorical finesse or not, he wrote quite convincingly thus turning this blog into an excellent rhetorical artifact. Reed Hastings’ blog post aims to convince American Internet consumers that strong net neutrality is important by appealing to their values of choice, frugality and empathy while simultaneously making ISPs seem ill intentioned and Netflix seem honorable.
As the technologies associated with communications have evolved, so have the messages that are being transmitted. In an effort to shield citizens from offensive speech, the United States government passed the Communications Act of 1934, which created the rules that a broadcaster would have to obey to remain on the air and restricted broadcasters from “utter[ing] any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication” (Scalia 2). This ban on obscene language was only to be in effect from the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. in an attempt try to limit children from hearing the offensive speech. Congress created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate this act and in 1975, the FCC implemented the statutory ban on indecent broadcasts when the comedian George Carlin did his “Filthy Words” piece during a daytime broadcast. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Supreme Court found the ban to be both good law and constitutional. The FCC said...
Radio censorship has been an unresolved conflict for many years. It started in the 1930s when the radio became a popular household item. The government set limits to protect many children who listened to the radio every night. One of the first example’s of radio censorship was in 1940 with George Formby’s song, “When I’m
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 ...
For centuries, governments have tried to regulate information thought to be inappropriate or offensive. Today’s technology has given the government an excuse to interfere with free speech. By claiming that radio frequencies are a limited resource, the government tells broadcasters what to say and what not to say. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) carefully monitors news, public, and local programming for what they consider obscenity (Hyland).
A recent and hotly debated topic among businesses, politicians, and internet users in the United States is that of net neutrality. With the rise of the internet over the past few decades, laws and regulations have struggled to keep up with the ever changing environment. As such, the problem of whether net neutrality should be enforced, and to what extent, has been a dividing issue. This problem has come into the public’s attention recently due to infringements and controversy surrounding policies by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In the following paragraphs, I plan to first define the concept of net neutrality, related topics which are crucial for an informed ethical discussion of the topic, and also related cases in which net neutrality
FREE SPEECH: We find that technology has given the government an excuse to interfere with free speech. Claiming that radio frequencies are a limited resource, the government tells broadcasters what to say (such as news and public and local service programming) and what not to say (obscenity, as defined by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]).
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
That states, large ISP companies, cannot block, or slow services down because of what the consumer uses the network for, and must treat every consumer (large or small) as equal. So why are large ISP’s trying to kill the net neutrality? One reason why is because it allows Telecommunication companies to offer unlimited data plans. Allowing low income consumers to enjoy the internet freely with any restrictions. Larger IPS argues that net neutrality favors the smaller companies? Without net neutrality, it would allow larger IPS companies to choose what company advances and what does not. Big IPS’s companies also wants to incorporated fast and slow lanes. Even though, large IPS’s supply services the net neutrality allows consumer to have control. Without Net Neutrality IPS’s companies will have paid prioritization. Making consumer pay for limited selected services decided by the IPS
Internet is a powerful tool that allows users to collaborate and interact with others all over the world conveniently and relatively safely. It has allowed education and trade to be accessed easily and quickly, but all these benefits do not come without very taxing costs. This is especially true when dealing with the likes of the Internet. Countries in the European Union and Asia have realized this and have taken action against the threat of net neutrality to protect their citizens, even at the cost of online privacy. Internet censorship is required to protect us from our opinions and vices. Every country should adopt Internet censorship and regulation since it improves society by reducing pornography, racism/prejudice, and online identity theft.
Head, Tom . "Radio Censorship." About.com Civil Liberties. About.com, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .
The internet has been one of the most influential technological advancements of the twenty-first century. It is in millions of homes, schools, and workplaces. The internet offers not only a way of communicating with people around the world, but also a link to information, shopping, chatting, searching, and maps. This freedom to be anyone and to "go" anywhere right from the comfort of home has become a cherished item. However, there is always a down side to every up. Because of the freedom to post anything and access anything on the internet, the issue of regulation has arisen; for example, what should and should not be allowed on the internet? Who has the right to regulate this space that we cherish for its freedom?
The biggest issue with the government monitoring internet content in recent news is the repeal of Net Neutrality. Many have argued that repealing net neutrality could be in violation of the First or Fourth Amendments, however, net neutrality has only begun to exist in recent years. It’s hard to argue the repeal to be unconstitutional when the act itself was only so recently enacted. The repeal of net neutrality would allow to government to censor some of the internet content that has been available to us. This issue has left many citizens of the U.S.
" Time for the Supreme Court to End FCC Indecency Censorship. " The Huffington Post. N.p., 11 Jan. 2012.