INTRODUCTION
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.
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 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 ...
... middle of paper ...
...ng principles. It is an implementation of the Internet’s freedom. Moreover, net neutrality regulates service providers, not the internet. The regulation of network neutrality would propose a positive induction in the aspect of internet freedom (Weitzner 22). The main concept of regulation is the underlying basis of the net neutrality debate. It would provide a positive impact to all parties, if implemented.
CONCLUSION
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.
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 Net Neutrality debate, or more appropriately the non-net neutrality debate, was first sparked by Ed Whitacre, the Chief Executive Officer of ATT in 2005 after his statement, “Now what [content providers] would like to do is use my pipes for free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it” (Kramer).
Imagine having to pay an extra $10 a month just so Netflix would stream fast enough for you to watch movies, or being an app developer and having to pay AT&T millions of dollars just so your customers can access your app on their network. These are the types of things that are prohibited through Net neutrality regulations. Net neutrality is the principle that all the traffic on the internet must be treated without discrimination, be it commercial or political. On December, 14, 2017, The Federal Communications Commision voted to implement chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to end Net Neutrality, removing the regulations that protect us from the shady profit seeking ways of powerful telecommunication giants. The protection of these regulations is imperative
On June 12, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the Net Neutrality policy. This policy was put in place in order to protect the securities and freedoms of the general public’s use of the internet. This protective and freeing policy, however, has been taken away as of December 14, 2017. The repeal of Net Neutrality is potentially hurtful and constricting to a large majority of Americans and therefore should be overturned. The repeal of Net Neutrality must be overturned because the American people deserve a free and open internet that allows the thoughts of the people to be freely expressed, and for users to be able to stream content and information freely. Without the protection provided by Net Neutrality, Americans will not
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
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.
" Network Neutrality should not be banned “On December 14, 2017, the Trump FCC voted to make the open internet and the network neutrality principles that sustain it a thing of the past.†Network neutrality should not be banned because we keep losing freedom. Network neutrality should also not be banned because we do not benefit from it .Finally network neutrality should not be banned because the government can use censorship instead of network neutrality. We as people keep losing more and more freedom. ¨During the state of the union youtube follow-up interview on February 1, 2010 president Obama again expressed commitment to Net Neutrality ¨ protecting a free internet protects are free speech.
Net Neutrality has been a rising topic of debate in recent months, and many people still have no idea what it is exactly. Net Neutrality is the idea that ISP’s- or Internet service providers, Should make it so people have access to all data on the internet without any discrimination or interference. That everyone should be created equal. There are supporters both for and against Net Neutrality. Those who support Net Neutrality are the common internet users.
Perhaps the most prominent person to hold this opinion is Peter Thiel, a founder of Paypal, who said: “The Internet is not broken, and it got here without government regulation and probably in part because of lack of government regulation" (NR Interview). Opponents of net neutrality like Peter Thiel state that the internet is fine as it is and has been because the internet is evolving without the intervention of the government. To further the argument that net neutrality regulation is unnecessary, Ajit Pai has stated: The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it's all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria.
Net neutrality in the past couple of years has become a hot topic for politicians and the legislation throughout the government. According to Guo, the topic of net neutrality has caused an uplifting amount of concern from content providers. Kasperkevic states that big name companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix, and Reddit participated in an action day to save net neutrality. These big-name companies do not want the government to change the net neutrality rules as they know it’ll cause more fees from internet companies to them. Kasperkevic interviewed Charles Duan, a staff attorney at Public Knowledge, during which he stated that a world taking away net neutrality would be like UPS delivering a package from Amazon faster than
Along with consumer advocates and human rights organizations, many internet application companies like Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, Google, etc. support net neutrality regulation and believe the FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, is making a terrible mistake ("The Net Neutrality Debate"). Nevertheless, while there are some people who support Net Neutrality, some oppose it. Those who are against Net Neutrality and siding with the FCC believe what they are doing is much needed, especially because of the negative influence the Internet has on young children and adults. Although information and certain content on the Internet can sometimes be misleading or bad for young children and adults, I, personally, believe the FCC should not regulate information on the internet by repealing our Net Neutrality laws. The Internet allows us, the people, to have a voice and exercise our freedom of
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.
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 regulation is basically restricting or controlling access to certain aspects or information. Internet regulation consists of mainly two categories: Censorship of data, and controlling aspects of the Internet.