The emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web brought upon a medium of communication with a range of opportunities to the world. However, this medium is, in due course, subject to the control of a few major companies. The enigma of expression and free speech on the internet is the central concern of the debated concept of network neutrality. Net neutrality is the idea of equal access to information for users and the concept pertaining ISP’s and their control over access to content (Weitzner 78). The packages provide a visualized concept of ISP content control in the debate of network neutrality. Tim-Berners Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, states the definition of net neutrality, “If [person A] uses to pay to connect to the net with a given quality of service and [person B] pays to connect to the net with the same, or a higher quality, of service, then [persons A and B] can communicate across the internet with that quality of service” (Tim Berners-Lee). There are several fundamental issues that are debated which will be elucidated throughout this paper. The question of network neutrality legislation plays a major role on the matters relating to equality between websites, protection of competition, benefits for consumers and network owners (ISP), whether regulation is a good idea and the legal arguments that surround the concept. The relationships between these topics will clarify and distinguish between the opposing sides of network neutrality. CONSUMERS 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 consumer has been the ultimate decision maker in the proces... ... middle of paper ... ...Internet access into official regulation. In addition to making sure that network operators cannot prevent users from accessing lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, or attaching unharmful devices to the network, Genachowski wants to add two more rules. The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement” (Reardon CNet) Proponents argue this would only regulate the service providers, not the internet while opponents claim that since the internet has been successful without the government regulations and it would only “limit the innovative business and pricing models” (Singer 41).
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 ...
Schmidt, E. E., & Cohen, J. (2014, March 11). The Future of Internet Freedom. Retrieved September 26, 2017, from
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
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
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...
...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.
On the contrary, the general public may argue that net neutrality is unnecessary because government control and regulation of the internet will provide a safer environment for users. According to M.C. Riley, “ISPs —instead of users— chose that lawful content, applications and services can be exchanged, offered and utilized. Existing possible services might become largely inoperable, and new services might thank never get off the ground, particularly if they compete with services offered by network operators” (Cleland and Riley 22). In the absence of net neutrality, ISPs can control and regulate content on the Internet, resulting on certain services becoming inoperable. Government control and regulation of the internet has provided a safer environment
Why should we be worried about the open internet? In the early 1990’s modern internet was introduced. After the increase in traffic flow (internet use) many large IPS (Internet Service Providers) were caught slowing data from popular websites to thousands of US businesses and residential customers in dozens of cities across the country. As a result, the Obama administration insisted on new Net Neutrality rules, meaning IPS’s could not block different websites or apps, slowing of services, or no discrimination amongst companies, which is causing many debates and concerns. Net Neutrality is the guiding principles for an open internet. The freedom of the web is in danger, and as the consumers we must preserve the freedom of the open internet. Substantial Internet Service Suppliers are attempting to hinder the internet and raise charges for Americans to use the web and only the American consumers can restrict them from having complete control. Without net neutrality the open internet could fall into the
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
Supporters of a new, regulated internet suggest that the federal government take control of the internet. Tom Wheeler from the Federal Communications Commission suggested a new age of online regulation, stating that the Internet has become so crucial that it needs a category similar to any other public utility so the government has more ability to regulate it (“A Plan to Treat Web”). This would make the internet equivalent to electricity or water, forcing consumers to pay for how much they use, and the speed at which they want the access. The necessary move to regulate internet plans to safeguard consumers and businesses from Internet Service providers trying to boost their profits by selling preferential treatment to some websites for speedier delivery of their videos and other content. Although the FCC would not have the ability to regulate the prices consumers pay like they do with land-line service. (A Plan to Treat Web”). This ensures that customers will not pay unfair prices compared to other consumers, although they wonder whether or not this will ring
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?
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.
Most of the Internet regulation is imposed by the Government in an effort to protect the best interest of the general public and is concerned with some form of censorship.
Free speech on the Internet is a very controversial subject and has been the key problem surrounding the Internet today. The attempt to regulate and govern the Internet is still pursued by government officials. This subject has been intensified due to terrorist attacks against the United States and around world within the past years. The government believes that by regulating the Internet, it will protect the general public from criminal actions and eliminate the exposure of children to pornography or vulgar language. Senator Jim Exon of ...