Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The problem of regulation on the internet
The problem of regulation on the internet
Net neutrality easy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The problem of regulation on the internet
When it comes to the topic of net neutrality, most scholars agree that it is harmful to the advancement of the internet. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of the extent of the ISP’s power to regulate the internet. Whereas some scholars are convinced that net neutrality is paramount to the internet’s growth, others maintain that the internet service providers have a right to regulate the very service they provide. This paper explores reasons for maintaining net neutrality and the power ISP’s should have while also asserting that net neutrality is essential for users to spread unhampered information without interference.
Net neutrality is publicly accessible information and transfer of that information. The public foundations of travel and communication (e.g., taxis, subways, phone companies) are not allowed to discriminate, or restrict common access, and this is the basic notion behind net neutrality as well. In 2005 two major actions dramatically changed the regulatory landscape as it applied to broadband services, further fueling the net neutrality debate. In both cases these actions led to the broadband Internet access services being subjected to a less rigorous regulatory framework. June 2005 upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2002 ruling that the providing of cable modem service is an interstate information service and is therefore subject to the less strict regulatory regime(Gilroy). The FCC also adopted a policy statement outlining principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet:
“(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run appl...
... middle of paper ...
...ic.
Revoking net neutrality would prevent the information of the web from being tampered or hindered with. The anti-net neutrality argument is that ISPs should be able to allocate their resources and establish business partnerships however they deem fit, and allowing the FCC to regulate how they do business would actually stifle innovation. If net neutrality is revoked allow ISPs to allocate more bandwidth to the platforms and publishers that need it most — the Googles and Netflixes of the world — thus making for a more smoothly functioning Internet. A free and open internet is the single greatest technology of our culture, and control should not be at the mercy of corporations. The dwindling of net neutrality would mean the end of an equal opportunity marketplace for startup websites to build their foundation and users to spread information without interference.
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 ...
Net Neutrality requires to give everyone access to everything on the internet. This means that your internet provider won’t charge you for using specific websites. But with this, companies will have the ability to charge you for using basic things such as email, Spotify and even YouTube. Fast and slow lanes will also be included which may vary depending of what packages you paid for. But that is just the beginning, being that with this they will be able to control what you are able to see and not, ending Freedom of Speech in the
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
Under the name of the “Death Angels”, Manuel Moore, Larry Green, Jessie Cooks, and J.C.X Simon killed at least 15 people and injured at least eight others between 1973 and 1974 during the most brutal killing spree in the history of San Francisco. Christine Lamberson (2015) recounts “The Zebra Murders”; her journal article addresses the issue of clashes between civil liberties and race. It was believed that the murders were racially instigated because whites were targeted as victims. The spree reached full race-war status on Jan. 28, 1974. That night, five shootings in various parts of the city resulting in four deaths and one injury were carried out by a gang of men using a .32 caliber pistol. Afterwards, Operation “Zebra”, named for police
...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.
The article was about net neutrality. The main voice of the article was our own Anooha Dasari and the article explained her efforts to keep net neutrality. Anooha described the absence of net neutrality as “dangerous” she states “It has formulated my personality, opinions and political ideology. If it is controlled, my generation of students could be inclined to be just on one part of the spectrum. That’s dangerous.” She then contacted United States representatives to convince them to keep the internet free of persuasion. The article then expanded from Anooha and explained that this as being largely debated all across America and not just in Mundelein High School. The end of the article circled back to Anooha and stated that she will forever
The Open Internet Order establishes two sets of “prophylactic rules” designed to “incorporate longstanding openness principles that are generally in line with current practices.” One set of rules applies to “fixed” broadband providers—i.e., those furnishing residential broadband service and, more generally, Internet access to end users “primarily at fixed end points using stationary equipment” Second, the Order imposes anti-blocking requirements on both types of broadband providers (13). Third, the Order imposes an anti-discrimination requirement on fixed broadband providers only (14). Verizon challenged the FCC claiming that they have over stepped their boundaries, and violated Verizon’s first amendment rights. That the FCC
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
The United States only recently introduced net neutrality legislation. Prior to these regulations, the internet functioned in a healthy and fair manner. The rules put in place in 2015 by the Obama administration were attempting to fix a problem that didn’t exist. These rules have limited consumers options rather than protecting them. The FCC under the Obama administration used legislation from the 1930’s and the 1990’s to regulate modern telecom companies. These rules are outdated and ill fitted to regulating modern telecom companies.
Internet providers have never had any plans to block content or to try to degrade the performance of the network.” (Hart 750). Essentially, they think having the internet without any laws would be in general more beneficial. The parties who support the keeping of net neutrality and its laws include tech giants such as Netflix, Mozilla Foundation and Consumer Federation of America. Their arguments are that “they are concerned about the potential discriminatory service from providers. Telecommunications companies should be required to provide all the consumers equally regardless of their geographical location or income. If the FCC stops regulating, providers can decide to stop offering services to lower-income families or to poorer neighborhoods. Also, in the absence of regulation internet access providers will adopt a non-neutral
In December 2017 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed net neutrality, leaving the Internet hostage to service providers. This decision caused a chilling effect on the sharing of ideas by allowing service providers, such as Comcast or Charter, to suppress certain websites by throttling the speed of which the site loads. A common example is that if a company does not align themselves with the message a news source is representing, then the service provider could essentially block their paying users from accessing the site. Restriction of certain sites could also be a result of certain companies paying service providers to block their competitorsëâ websites. A real-life example of a corporation restricting content is Verizon Wirelessëâs censorship of NARAL pro-choice America.
ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment thereby relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would definetly destroy the open internet. (Sulleyman, 2017). Ending Net Neutrality could also have a big effect on innovation and competition. For example, Internet Service Providers that have their own video services could choose to slow down customers’ connections when they try to use a competing service, such as Netflix.
In this paper I will look at the issue of net neutrality and some of the ramifications of having net neutrality or not having net neutrality. I will first define what net neutrality is and why it has become such an issue in recent years. I will then provide brief arguments for and against net neutrality. I will then discuss why I believe that the argument in favour of net neutrality is the stronger argument and why I agree with it. Internet Neutrality is the idea that if users of internet service providers (ISPs) pay for a certain level of internet service, such as speed of service, than those users should expect access to the internet, without the ISP favouring, blocking or interfering with access to internet sites, product or services.
Fortunately, a consumer movement by the name of “Net neutrality” exists to defeat this effort. Net neutrality is the philosophy that all legal content on the web should be handled the same. Net neutrality is crucial because it allows fair access to the internet for all consumers, bans ISPs from controlling data, and allows a level playing field for innovation on the internet. Net neutrality doesn’t just protect content producers; it directly benefits the consumer as well. There is substantial evidence in the past of ISPs unfairly blocking certain protocols on the net.
Net Neutrality is dead. Net Neutrality, the belief that the internet should free and equal to everyone. The belief that you have the right to a free and equal internet. The belief that you have the right to unrestricted (legal) content. The belief that big tech shouldn’t be able to block, throttle, or create “fast lanes” for your internet that require you to pay.