Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues with net neutrality
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers should be required to treat all internet traffic during over their wired and wireless
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues with net neutrality
Impacts of Not Preserving Net Neutrality: Tiered Internet Service 1 INTRODUCTION Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content or use any application without restriction or limitation from their internet service provider [1]. Net neutrality can be further broken down into four core concepts as described by Daniel J. Weitzners, non-discriminatory routing of packets, user control choice over service levels, ability to create and use new services and protocols without approval of network operators and nondiscriminatory peering of backbone network [1]. A tiered internet service is a structure that allows user to choose and pay for the amount of bandwidth that best suits their need [2]. This paper is organized at follows, Section 2 discusses the background and history of net neutrality. Section 3 talks about tiered internet service and the arguments for and against it. Section 4 talks about the global consequences of net neutrality. Section 5 of this paper goes into an ethical analysis of tiered services. 2. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE In December 2005, 98 percent of broadband service stated that they had an interest in providing a multi-tiered internet service to user and also expressed desire to charge content providers more money for preferential access to their broadband service. As a result many content providers protested for a neutral internet, one that does not discriminate. Their effort led to the debates about net neutrality and a way to legislate and prevent ISP’s from creating a multi-tiered internet service [1]. The term net neutrality is coined by Professor Tim Wu, of Columbia University [3]. In 2010 the FCC created regulations for the “Open Internet”, these ruled prohibite... ... middle of paper ... ...8-2 ed., IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management: IEEE, Dec 2013. [7] Francois Boussion, Patrick Maillé, Bruno Tuffin, Net Neutrality Debate: Impact of Competition among ISPs, 978-1-4673-0298-2 ed., IEEE, 2012. [8] Shane G Reenstein, Four Nightmares for Net Neutrality, 0272-1732 ed., Micro Economics: IEEE Computer Society, Nove-Dec 2006. [9] Greg Goth, Net Neutrality’s Unpublicized Achilles’Heel, 1089-7801 ed., News and Trends: IEEE Computer Society, May-June 2006. [10] Matthew Hilburn, Net Neutrality Debate in US Could Have Global Ripple Effects, http://www.voanews.com/content/net-neutrality-debate-in-us-could-have-global-ripple-effects/1832561.html: Voice of America, Jan 2014. [11] Bret Swanson, Google and the Problem With 'Net Neutrality', http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052748703628304574452951795911162: Wall Street Journal, Oct 2009.
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.
ZEE. (2010, February 27). Newsweek in 1995: Why the Internet will Fail. Retrieved from The Next Web:
On any given day in 2015, you would be hard-pressed to walk into a room at random in America without encountering a Smart Phone. There is hardly a library left that does not feature a quiet chorus of clicking keyboards from the laptops within. We are, in essence, permanently plugged in to the Great and Powerful Internet, and we rely on service providers (ISP’s) to provide us with this now-important resource. Lately, though, getting Internet is becoming less and less simple as folks debate the enforcement of Internet— or “net”— neutrality in the United States. There are a lot of inflated egos arguing back and forth on the subject, and the phrase “net neutrality” is becoming widely recognized amongst every day Internet users. But how many of these people actually get what is going on, here? What is net neutrality, and why are household net surfers and economists alike getting
Although the net neutrality debate didn’t come into the spot light so long ago, it has sparked controversy in the communications world. This concept provides a positive impact to the consumers, competition and network owners/internet service providers. It broadens the aspect of equality, which the open Internet was first based on. The profound effects on the aforementioned players provide a supported purpose to regulate the notion of net neutrality.
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
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
ISPs, including ATT, express concern about the proposed rules of Net Neutrality that would prohibit it from slowing competitors’ web traffic or accessing content (Shatz). By not allowing the ability for ISPs to regulate its network and the bandwidth that moves through it, it can cause a variety of problems that un...
Key Internet Cases (2002) Significant Internet Jurisdiction Cases. Online at http://www.unc.edu Referecned on November 22nd, 2004
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 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.
Schmidt, E. E., & Cohen, J. (2014, March 11). The Future of Internet Freedom. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." TheAtlantic.com. The Atlantic Magazine, July/August 2008. Web. 18 February 2012.
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?
In 2012 the United Nations released a report declaring the internet access as a human right (United Nations, 2012). The way people use the internet today across the world makes it an extraordinary force. We can see its
Levy, Steven, Brad Stone, and Peter Suciu. "All Eyes On Google. (Cover Story)." Newsweek 143.13 (2004):