NETWORK NEUTRALITY

Section B / TOPIC 1 – TECH & POLICY

NETWORK NEUTRALITY: THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET

 

Group 1: Joseph Frangione, Yongshi Ouyang, Samuel Adjei,, Jake Barbiere, Natalie                                Colucci, Anthony Fiumefreddo, Jesse Flood, Madhavi Maitri

 

How Net Neutrality Works

How Net Neutrality Works – The New York Times 

 

  • Net neutrality is like ordering packages to ship to your house – all packages should be shipped at the same rate/speed. 
  • If net neutrality is removed by law, one company can pay extra $$$ to be prioritized and get on the first truck
  • If that company doesn’t pay $$$, they get shut out and your package will be delivered late
  • Has implications for democracy and commerce
  • Tom Wheeler of the FCC proposes to regulate ISPs as “utility providers”

 

 

Net Neutrality – Wikipedia

Net neutrality – Wikipedia

 

  • Net neutrality preserves free speech on the internet from blocking the content by prohibiting internet service providers. This was implemented in 2015 as a common carrier, same as telephone service.

 

  • The concept of Net neutrality is supported by India, America and also promotes competition by providing a level playing field for a new set of entrepreneurs. It Protects consumers by preventing ISPs from speeding, slowing, or charging extra fees for the preferred content.

 

  • Net neutrality reduces investment in internet services resulting in less access and higher costs for consumers. FCC reported that they are a burden to ISP providers and also exceeds their authority. For example, the ISP CenturyLink to meet regulation rules of net neutrality extra paperwork, with a high amount.

 

  • The largest internet companies like Facebook, Google, YouTube reached significant growth in the development in the absence of Net neutrality.

 

 

 

The Net Neutrality Debate

The Net Neutrality Debate: The Basics | EDUCAUSE

 

  • Depending on the audience and players involved, net neutrality can have multiple definitions and meanings.  To simplify, network neutrality is the basic principle that Internet users should be able to access any content they choose and any application without any restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider.
  • The players of net neutrality can be grouped into the Deregulators (those who are not in favor, such as cable companies) and the Openists (those who are in favor, such as content providers like Disney).
  • The history of the debate was centered on the Federal Communications Commission recognizing the cable industry’s media monopoly over its own networks (2002).  This topic became more popular in 2005 as the debate broadened in newspapers and trade journals.  
  • Limited deregulation of net neutrality has led to U.S. telecommunications companies being able to maintain a duopoly and minimize competition through mergers and acquisitions.  This results in the consumers having fewer provider choices and more product choices made for them by the dominant companies.
  • Based on future predictions and their different visions, achieving a national consensus on net neutrality is not likely.  Deregulators believe in bandwidth scarcity and their tiered-pricing approach while Openists believe in a bandwidth surplus if we build it.  The telecommunications policies could be faced with short term damage on the ability to innovate and compete at the global level due to the debate on net neutrality.

 

 

 

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: NO FAST LANES FOR THE RICH

FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility – The New York Times

 

FCC votes for net neutrality, a ban on paid fast lanes, and Title II | Ars Technica

 

  • In a 3-2 decision, the FCC voted to treat the internet as a utility and be governed as such. The public would be entitled to a 25Mb service, which is akin to other utilities like water, and electricity. 
  • The decision also banned “paid fast lanes”, eliminating practices such as:  faster internet speeds, prioritization, and throttling. 
  • The net neutrality ruling stops providers from banning access to certain websites or applications. 
  • Mobile carriers, like Verizon and AT&T, lobbied heavily against net neutrality, because they stand to lose profits made on offering different levels of service. Sprint and T-Mobile did not lobby against Net Neutrality, citing that it would not harm their business. 
  • Net Neutrality, additionally notes Title II as their legal footing; Title II essentially treats services, like telephone landlines, as a public utility. 
  • Republican members of the FCC, and GOP in general, were averse to net neutrality, citing it as an inhibitor of freedoms, and leading to more costs picked up by consumers and ISPs. 

 

 

 

TRUMP: THE REVERSAL

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html 

 

  • The FCC voted to repeal the net neutrality regulations that were set in 2015 during the Obama administration.
  • The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone service.
  • Several public interest groups, the Internet Association, the trade group that represents big tech firms such as Google and Facebook, were considering legal action.
  • Major telecom companies like AT&T and Comcast, as well as two of the industry’s major trade groups, have promised consumers that their experiences online would not change after the repeal. 

 

https://www.newsmax.com/t/finance/article/901371?section=markets&keywords=tech-companies-states-net&year=2019&month=02&date=05&id=901371

  • Lawyers for the states and the companies tried to persuade the three-judge panel to restore the net neutrality regime, set in 2015 during the Obama administration and repealed in December 2017 at the direction of a regulator appointed by President Donald Trump.
  • Government lawyers, as well as big internet providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, argued to keep net neutrality repealed while Mozilla and some other companies think that the FCC wrongly classified the internet as an information service rather than a telecoms service.
  • The politically charged issue has emerged from its origins as an engineering challenge to become an anti-monopoly rallying point and even a focus for “resistance” to the Trump administration.
  • The judges are weighing whether the FCC had the authority to nix the 2015 rules and get out of the business of enforcing net neutrality.

 

 

THE COURT RULES

Court says FCC’s ‘unhinged’ net neutrality repeal can’t stop state laws | TechCrunch

 

  • The FCC’s appeal of net neutrality was weakened by a Federal Appeals Court which ruled that the commission could not preempt state laws like those in California
  • This decision is not final and could be taken all the way to the Supreme Court of Appeals to reach a final verdict
  • There are loopholes between broadband and “Lifeline Programs” that need to be addressed by the FCC which they haven’t been able to make much progress on
  • The FCC is relying on a technicality to prove its case which is something that needs to be addressed and fixed at a higher court level right away

 

 

NET NEUTRALITY AND THE COVID-19 CRISIS 

The Covid-19 Pandemic Shows the Virtues of Net Neutrality | WIRED

 

  • The rise in internet traffic during Covid-19 was preventing people from accessing their school work, applying for unemployment, and health care information. The argument of Net Neutrality came into play where internet providers should put a halt on entertainment services during a pandemic instead of equal distribution.
  • This pandemic made the world realize that more people than ever rely on the internet and should be free to choose the video conference system, education websites, and entertainment they want instead of letting someone else decide.  
  • More than 700 companies and organizations have signed the “Keep America Connected” pledge not to terminate internet service over pandemic related financial situations and make sure to allow free Wi-Fi services.
  • Organizations and broadband providers like Comcast and AT&T reduced some of their capital expenditures in order to develop network upgrades years in advance following the net neutrality rules. This will help the world be prepared for another world event where everyone needs the internet.   

 

Who needs net neutrality? Internet providers are handling coronavirus demand just fine.

 

  • Businesses are relying on video communications as management and delivery platforms. This opens the door for innovation for creating tools that the world is finding very essential right now.
  • Net neutrality and the pandemic made the world realize that we don’t need to subsidize internet services.
  • During the pandemic, we started to realize that we need more broadband because there is a digital divide that is separating Americans from relief like unemployment and health services. 
  • The success for building a digital infrastructure is letting consumers vote with their dollars, federal policies that unleash innovative and competitive forces, and penalize anti-competitive conduct. However, some government regulations think that their roadmap for building a digital infrastructure works when it doesn’t.  

 

 

And Biden…

Biden’s call to restore net neutrality: What you should know – CNET

 

  • Biden wants Broadband companies to provide transparency on their pricing and be open to sharing that they are involving net neutrality
  • Biden has put a large emphasis on making sure broadband is available to all Americans and has pledged over $100 Billion in spending on the project
  • Net Neutrality supporters want a fifth Board member added to the FCC board as it currently has two democrats and two republicans serving making it very tough to institute new policies
  • Net neutrality is important because we must determine who is going to police broadband and how they plan on doing so
  • The most effective way to incorporate net neutrality laws is going to have to be through Congress since they have the ability to set federal standards and regulations

 

 

 

OVERALL SUMMARY OF ALL ARTICLES

 

Network neutrality is the notion that regardless of the source, all internet service providers must enable customers to have equal access to content and applications. Internet traffic must be treated on a first come first serve basis.  Large internet companies amongst other big organizations are in favor of network neutrality because it prevents cable companies and telecommunications from billing them based on the amount consumed by the content they deliver via the internet. Companies that are opposed to network neutrality prefer to charge different proceeds dependent on the amount of bandwidth that is consumed. For example, companies like Amazon and Netflix are in favor of network neutrality because differentiated pricing would cause start-up companies with high-bandwidth consumption not to gain traction.

 

Net neutrality is a highly debatable topic because many believe that internet traffic should be treated indiscriminately. They argue that if the internet is controlled by the highest bidder, your access to content will become limited. Under Obama in 2015, the FCC approved net neutrality rules, deeming ISPs to be “utility providers” like gas and electric companies. It was reversed however, in 2017 when the FCC re-classified ISPs to be an “information service” and not a utility. It is now being discussed again under Joe Biden, who is in favor of net neutrality.

 

Opponents of net neutrality have argued that in times of high internet traffic, ISPs can prioritize access for those who really need it, like students, healthcare workers, first responders, etc., while those using the web for entertainment purposes would be suppressed. As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us, the internet is capable of handling unusually high traffic, regardless of purpose. All-in-all, net neutrality is something that should be important to all of us, as we rely on the internet now more than ever. 

 

 

QUESTIONS 

 

  1. In every debate, there are always 2 or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality and who is opposed to network neutrality? Who are the stakeholders and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?
  2. Do you think you’ve been (or can be) affected by the removal of net neutrality? What are the downstream effects of removing network neutrality?  Explain.
  3. One framework for resolving the network neutrality issue that has been considered in the past and continues to be debated actively is the question of whether the internet should be treated as a public utility. Your thoughts and responses.

 

 

42 thoughts on “NETWORK NEUTRALITY

  1. In every debate, there are always 2 or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality and who is opposed to network neutrality?

    The Proponent of net neutrality are companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Netflix etc that utilize the internet as means operate their business and reach customers.

    Opponents of net neutrality include ISP ( internet service providers), Hardware manufactures, telecom equipment manufacturers etc.

    Who are the stakeholders and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?

    Supporters of net neutrality argument:

    These companies rely on the net neutrality to ensure that all users have similar experience. They fear that ISP will pick and chose whose service to speed up and who to slow down “The danger behind fragmentation, as viewed by proponents of net neutrality, is the concept that there could be “multiple ‘Internets,'” where some ISPs offer exclusive internet applications or services or make it more difficult to gain access internet content that may be more easily viewable through other internet service providers.”

    Opponents of net neutrality argument:

    Opponents of net neutrality argument revolves around the idea that if the ISP were not regulated by article 2 they would have more incentive to innovate and invest in their business.

    Like

    1. Hi Ervis, I also wrote about the same question. I agree that the companies who rely on net neutrality would be the ones that want a similar user experience for everyone, whereas the opposition would be with those that prefer to create incentives for their business by having people invest with new innovations. There are definitely points to support both sides of this, and I think you did a great job explaining it.

      Like

    2. Hi Ervis,

      I am neutral about this debate. Companies that support removing net neutrality need to profit enough to recover their investment. On the other hand, this will also encourage companies to further improve and invest in better service. I did not experience any difference in internet speed during the pandemic. The providers did everything to ensure everyone could stay in tune while working from home or taking lectures at home.

      Thank you,
      Cici Ouyang

      Like

      1. Hey Cici! While the pandemic is one example, the long term operating environment for the telecoms during that time due to the increased demand in the consumer market is not sustainable long-term without coming at a great cost to the company. Additionally as a result of have to pivot resources to the existing network, advancements in technology were likely delayed.

        Like

      2. Hi Cici,
        I appreciate your position and in a perfect world i am a firm believer that firms need to be left alone so they can innovate. What i fear as often it has proven the case where the responsibility to the shareholders and profits often overcomes the quest for the common good. I fear that in due course with a government in charge that does not mind much the lack of consumer fairness, these companies would succumb to the oldest capitalist instinct ( that of making money) and segment the free internet into tiers, where those who can afford to pay would be at the top while small companies would be left struggling for bandwidth.

        Like

      3. Hey Cici! I understand that, but while the pandemic is one example, the long term operating environment for the telecoms during that time due to the increased demand in the consumer market is not sustainable long-term without coming at a great cost to the company. Additionally as a result of having to pivot resources to the existing network sustaining the increased demand, advancements in technology were likely delayed.

        Like

      4. Hey Cici! I understand that, but while the pandemic is one example, the long term operating environment for the telecoms during that time due to the increased demand in the consumer market is not sustainable long-term without coming at a great cost to the company. Additionally as a result of having to pivot resources to the existing network sustaining the increased demand, advancements in technology were likely delayed.

        Like

      5. I agree that companies need to make profit because at the end of the day it’s all about the money. I was not affected as a consumer either however I might be in the future and if it is demanded I pay a higher price then I may not have a choice. On the other hand if I was a provider I would also encourage taking a path towards more profit despite consumers. As much as I would like to believe in a perfect or fair world the truth is our world doesn’t even come close to it and whether or not there is net neutrality the world will be the same.

        Like

  2. Do you think you’ve been (or can be) affected by the removal of net neutrality? What are the downstream effects of removing network neutrality? Explain.

    We live in a society based on rules and regulations. Nothing is purely capitalistic, nor should it be. The internet in this case has become a necessity, like water and electricity. Can you imagine a world in which you have to pay premium exorbitant prices for pure water or better electricity; the working class and lower, who could not afford premiums, subjected to impure water, faulty power, etc. Since this is not the case with the aforementioned utilities, this should not be any different for the internet, an invaluable resource, with growing importance every day.

    One could argue the internet is not as necessary as water and power, but this is incredibly subjective. There are those who live in areas where they essentially do not have electricity or their own internal water supply (see the show Alaskan Bush People). Additionally, mankind had lived without these amenities before, so the core of the issue here is quality of life. If people are entitled to clean water, and power standards, then they should also be entitled to internet quality unimpeded by prioritization, fast lanes, blockages, etc.

    Additionally, mobile service is an area that is not ideal for consumers at present. There are several service packages for unlimited data. Notice, when a consumer has gone beyond a certain limit in their “unlimited” plan, the speed reduces and essentially uses less data. This is a warning sign, as this could be the case for all devices using the internet, if rules are not implemented to protect consumers from a deregulated market.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/dwightsilverman/2021/07/13/att-joins-t-mobile-in-offering-an-unlimited-data-plan-that-actually-is-unlimited/?sh=6b2cbd807150

    Like

    1. Hey Jesse, I enjoyed reading your response. I feel that it’s very hard to pick a side in regards to net neutrality. On one hand, I completely agree that internet is becoming more and more needed, just like water and power. It is something we use everyday in order to work, receive an education, or just for recreational use. For the consumer, I would definitely agree with you in that regulated internet is necessary for all classes of people. On the other hand, for businesses like Verizon and AT&T, who make their business based off specific packages and offerings, it could be quite difficult for them, or any internet-based company, to succeed against competition. In order to become unified, like power and water, in which homeowners do not usually have a choice in choosing, internet would have to be offered under one general company for a specific area. This could certainly harm existing internet companies who compete with deals and based on locations of consumers. The topic is very hard to pick a side on, as there are significant pros and cons for both businesses and customers. Great response

      Like

  3. Do you think you’ve been (or can be) affected by the removal of net neutrality? What are the downstream effects of removing network neutrality? Explain.

    Anybody can be affected by any decision whether it be the removal of net neutrality or free health care. The question is more if the affect is positive or negative. With the removal of net neutrality, the internet can be sold in sections/bundles to consumers leading them to pay more for different packages. In today’s society the internet is not just a tool used to access information but it is also used to for social media such as twitter and instagram as well as entertainment including Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. With a wide range utilization the internet has to offer there are a lot of different bundles providers can sell to consumers for a higher charge with the consumer having no choice but to pay it. With that being said, the removal of net neutrality will have a negative impact on me personally.
    Below is an article from the New York Times dated in 2017 on how the removal of net neutrality can affect consumers.

    Like

  4. 1. In every debate, there are always 2 or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality and who is opposed to network neutrality? Who are the stakeholders and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?

    In this topic, we could see that some mobile carriers, like Verizon and AT&T, are heavily against net neutrality. They stated that they would lose profits due to different levels of service they offer. I have Verizon as our home’s main phone and internet service, and I am quite familiar with the various packages they offer to change the speed of the internet. I recently upgraded our home’s internet, which is faster but also much more expensive. From this example, I could understand why a company like Verizon might not want net neutrality.

    Competitors like Sprint and T-Mobile were mentioned in this case to be indifferent to net neutrality, stating that it would not potentially harm their company. I am unsure as to why they might not suffer a loss with net neutrality, as I would imagine they also offer various speed and internet options, but perhaps they have ways around this to meet the demands of net neutrality.

    The stakeholders seem to be concerned about whether or not net neutrality, with regulations from the government, will prove to be successful or be a hindrance on their investments. After doing some research, it seems that those who support this topic believe that this protects consumers’ rights to use any content or service online without discrimination or interference from the companies who provide the services. Opponents seem to feel that the current competition is sufficient to ensure the welfare of network users, and if it were regulated, it could reduce an incentive for investing in network infrastructure.

    Click to access hicss10cheng.pdf

    Like

    1. Hi Jared,
      I think because those companies deal in the wireless space they are not affected by the landline speed bottlenecks that companies like comcast and Verizon could create. They control their own destiny as the net neutrality debate does not affect that industry. They are already able to tier price and cap speed hence its beneficial for them to remain neutral in this debate as to avoid any public backlash.

      Like

  5. 1. Obama Administration and content providers supported net neutrality. These parties think everyone should receive the same internet speed and minimize competition through mergers and acquisitions. On the other hand, the Trump Administration and the cable companies do not support net neutrality. These parties believe in bandwidth scarcity.
    2. I don’t think that the removal of net neutrality affected my use of the internet, as the cost for the internet is the same for me. Additionally, I could still browse the sites that I usually on. The downside of removing net neutrality is that the government gains control of the contents that one could view.
    3. I stay neutral about this debate. As I mentioned, government control is my main concern in removing net neutrality. I came from China, where net neutrality has not existed. Many websites had been blocked by the government, such as YouTube and Google. However, removing net neutrality could encourage the cable company to update equipment and provide better services. The cable companies are able to capture more profits to recover their investment.

    Like

    1. Cici, very interesting post. China actually blocked YouTube and Google over there? That’s crazy.

      About cable companies providing better services, I’d be interested to see how that plays out. A part of me thinks that if ISPs have more control, they are less incentivized to improve. But who knows.

      Like

    2. Hi Cici,

      Regarding your comments to question three, while I am against the complete removal of net neutrality I do agree with your stance that it may influence providers to create better products as to improve their market position. I think there is an issue, though, with there only being a handful of major telecommunication/cable providers. If they were left to operate un-regulated I would like to think they would work to improve their products to seem more appealing, but their current power and control may not incentivize them to do so.

      Like

  6. 3. The net neutrality debate has been looked at as a business issue and a consumer concern. Startups and entrepreneurs might not be able to afford higher fees; the smallest voices may no longer be heard and able to thrive. But the decision to repeal net neutrality also has potential implications on education that should be addressed at local and national levels.

    For a school system facing budget constraints, paying extra for increased speed or the guarantee that students have access to open-source tools (e.g., Mozilla, Inkscape, RedNoteBook, etc.) may not be feasible. The removal of net neutrality does not take into consideration the local monopolies maintained by internet service providers. Many of our school districts can receive broadband services from only one or two providers, looking for a rate that fits within the budget of a cash-strapped school in a market that does not have enough business to provide services at a competitive rate. This may become a growing problem for school administrators.

    Additionally, the family who can’t access a simple internet resource such as Wikipedia — an online service that cannot compete within a digital marketplace — may be limited to the preferred knowledge content of the provider. The implications of the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” on families with fewer resources are the most concerning. The family who lives miles from the closest library is at the mercy of what its provider allows in terms of access and speed.

    https://www.strivetogether.org/insights/effects-repealing-net-neutrality-vulnerable-students/

    It’s hard to say what will actually happen if net neutrality is removed, as no other highly developed country has done this before, but Wired reports that net neutrality does not in practice hinder investment by Telecom companies, and a quick glance at Comcast’s growth over the last five years would seem to discredit the notion that net neutrality has done them undue harm.

    https://www.gettingsmart.com/2017/12/12/what-losing-net-neutrality-would-mean-for-education/

    The trend has been that the internet has become cheaper and cheaper. Here’s where things get complicated, though: At the same time as it’s become technologically easier to access data, demand is spiking. And even though the United States is known for having relatively little competition among Internet Service Providers—in many cities, consumers are forced to choose between one or two unpopular companies like Comcast or Time Warner—the uptick in mobile wireless access may represent an emerging field of competitors. But that doesn’t mean prices are going to fall sometime soon.

    Wireless, it must be pointed out, has limitations of its own. There’s only so much wireless-spectrum availability out there—which is part of why wireless carriers try to offload their consumers back onto wi-fi networks. The spectrum scarcity is also how the FCC, continues to politicize the cost of a connection.

    Like

  7. In my view Internet should not be treated as public utility because it will be like you will have to pay for your consumption per kb or MB wise and it will become more expensive. These days internet is being used more than water and electricity.

    You are going to pay more for what you already consume. So by definition, no real value is being created in this exchange — it is only what economists call rent-seeking, a transfer of value from you, to telecomms companies. Now, companies use their profits these days for two things, mostly: share buybacks, and CEO compensation. So the “rollback of net neutrality” is a long-winded way to say money leaves the pocket of the average American, to go to hedge funds and CEOs. Thus, inequality grows, dissatisfaction rises, and America is even less able to afford what it needs: education, healthcare, transport, and so on.

    But that’s only really the beginning. The way that American economics and law looks at regulation, and hence utilities, is simple — too simple. If something lowers prices, it’s a good thing. And so the argument against net neutrality is ultimately that somehow internet bills will come down. Of course, they won’t, because there is no real competition in the marketplace — so how could they? Monopolies don’t lower prices: they raise them.

    These questions of the human good are deeper and subtler than American thought has come to suppose. The good is not something that the invisible hand can always ineluctably provide. America’s devotion to that hand has become a religion, empty of reason, blind to the world. The hand becomes a fist that punches down human possibility, instead of lifting it up, when we forget that the first job a society has is to provide the basics of life, not only to create luxuries that cannot be fully enjoyed without them. That is what growth truly is: yesterday’s impossibilities becoming today’s necessities.

    All that is why the internet should be a public utility. This is the 21st century, and to ask monopolistic, unidimensional, profit-maximizing capitalism to allocate the single greatest public good humankind has proba/bly ever created — the place where you can read books, watch films, make relationships, and begin to explore yourself — is like asking the invisible hand to hold a child. That hand is a ghost. The child will only fall. And what the child truly needs is a mother.

    Full article on :
    https://popularresistance.org/why-the-internet-should-be-a-public-utility/#:~:text=The%20internet%20should%20be%20a%20public%20utility%20%E2%80%94,only%20giving%20it%20to%20whomever%20can%20afford%20it

    Like

  8. Overall, I think I am in favor of net neutrality. I believe the internet should be an open marketplace, free of any restrictions or influence. Competition favors the consumer, and it seems to me the only ones who lose out from net neutrality are the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) trying to boost their profits. On the other hand, I don’t know if I’ve been personally affected by ISPs increased influence. What I HAVE noticed is that Google, who controls 90% of the web’s search engines, has too much power over the web. They censor any search results that don’t align with their company’s core values. The internet should be a place where all voices can be heard, and all information can be accessed easily by the general public.

    Like

    1. Hi Joseph,

      I wholeheartedly agree with you that net neutrality is an important aspect of our digital society. It allows for everyone to access the Internet without any slowdowns in terms of data delivery. If major Internet Service Providers have control over the speed of which information can be communicated to the public, then what is to stop them from slowing it down for multiple middle-class consumers and increasing the price tenfold for them to have high-speed internet? It’s blatant corporate abuse to me and the only reason the Trump Administration repealed it was to get more money from lobbyists. Overall, in my opinion it’s important that all of us have proper access to the Internet and that we are unrestricted in our data speeds no matter what race, creed, or income-level we have.

      Like

    2. Hello Joseph,

      I agree with your point that the only ones who lose out from net neutrality are the Internet Service providers trying to boost their profits. As you mentioned above, the internet should be a place where there is no/limited censorship and net neutrality would allow this to happen. No one company should have the power to control what people can search for on the internet, so if net neutrality would limit a company’s control power I am in favor of it.

      Like

  9. 1. After reading the articles, The Obama Administration was supportive of net neutrality. By supporting net neutrality, they want everyone to have equal opportunities when it comes to things like internet speed. This will also keep companies like Verizon and AT&T from less competition with one another, and using a necessity like the internet for their profit.2. I am not sure if I have been, or can be affected by the removal of net neutrality. I do not follow the topic enough to be self aware about what is happening in regards to myself. I feel that a lot of people think that the government is doing it for more harm than good, when I see it as them trying to give equal opportunities to people who need it in an environment when everything we do needs technology and the internet, including school.3. As I said before, I do not know enough about the topic to really pick a side, even after reading the articles I feel it is something that I would have to follow and see trends on before I can make a decision as to what side I would be on. When I came back home from living at school when the Covid shutdown first started, I noticed that I was unable to get a strong connection from our wi-fi box and that was because Verizon limited us to 6 devices on the wifi at once. Even if our TV was off and other devices were off of the wi-fi while I was doing my school work, the connection was still slow or non-existent. We ended up having to upgrade our systems which cost us more money, but I am not sure if net neutrality was in place if that would have helped with that. I find that internet providers will not explain the whole truth about their systems and use it to their advantage when they want you to upgrade. It is a topic that I would like to learn more about and follow the trends on to understand it a little bit better.

    Like

  10. 1. In review of the post and the Education Review article on the basics of Net Neutrality, the two basic players are defined as Deregulators (those who oppose opposed to net neutrality) and Regulators/Openists (those who are in favor of the policies).

    The Deregulators, entities such as the large telecommunication and cable providers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Warner, etc.). Without net neutrality principles, these providers would hold a duopoly over internet data. Their influence would prevent competitors from entering the market, and they would control the amount of broadband provided to customers based on inflated prices they set. It would also give these larger corporations the ability to offer a-la-carte services, where customers much pick, choose, and pay for the items they desire.

    The Regulators/Openists are organizations who reach their audience through their online platforms. In an age of streaming, the main competitors at the moment are Disney, Netflix, Amazon, with major cable networks also beginning to siphon their content onto their own streaming platforms. Without net neutrality, the companies and their online products may not even be offered by certain providers unless they are willing to pay an exorbitant fee.

    2. I am a proponent of net neutrality as I feel the regulations currently in place are pro-consumer to a certain degree. As pointed out above, the removal of these rules would put a tremendous amount of power in the few telecommunication/cable providers. They would be able to set their own inflated prices for internet/cable use, with the ability to create “fast lanes” to higher paying customers and throttling the speed and service of lower paying users.

    3. I am torn on whether internet service should be considered a public utility, and I think a major reason as to why I am on the fence is because the internet is still so new to us and is constantly evolving. When I think of public utilities, my mind immediately goes to services such as water, gas, and electric. While making internet service a public utility would allow for greater government regulation and set rules behind net neutrality, internet just feel like a different service altogether than the current public utility options. I think it is also hard to set the service as a utility when it is constantly changing, and if the internet as we know it now may look completely different five or ten years from now. It just seems difficult to set rules and regulations now behind a service that is fluid.

    Like

  11. 1. In review of the post and the Education Review article on the basics of Net Neutrality, the two basic players are defined as Deregulators (those who oppose opposed to net neutrality) and Regulators/Openists (those who are in favor of the policies).

    The Deregulators, entities such as the large telecommunication and cable providers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Warner, etc.). Without net neutrality principles, these providers would hold a duopoly over internet data. Their influence would prevent competitors from entering the market, and they would control the amount of broadband provided to customers based on inflated prices they set. It would also give these larger corporations the ability to offer a-la-carte services, where customers much pick, choose, and pay for the items they desire.

    The Regulators/Openists are organizations who reach their audience through their online platforms. In an age of streaming, the main competitors at the moment are Disney, Netflix, Amazon, with major cable networks also beginning to siphon their content onto their own streaming platforms. Without net neutrality, the companies and their online products may not even be offered by certain providers unless they are willing to pay an exorbitant fee.

    2. I am a proponent of net neutrality as I feel the regulations currently in place are pro-consumer to a certain degree. As pointed out above, the removal of these rules would put a tremendous amount of power in the few telecommunication/cable providers. They would be able to set their own inflated prices for internet/cable use, with the ability to create “fast lanes” to higher paying customers and throttling the speed and service of lower paying users.

    3. I am torn on whether internet service should be considered a public utility, and I think a major reason as to why I am on the fence is because the internet is still so new to us and is constantly evolving. When I think of public utilities, my mind immediately goes to services such as water, gas, and electric. While making internet service a public utility would allow for greater government regulation and set rules behind net neutrality, internet just feel like a different service altogether than the current public utility options. I think it is also hard to set the service as a utility when it is constantly changing, and if the internet as we know it now may look completely different five or ten years from now. It just seems difficult to set rules and regulations now behind a service that is fluid.

    Like

    1. Hi Joe,

      I agree that when I think of public utilities,I also think of services such as water, gas, and electric. By having government regulation and rules this would change internet in a huge way. By working at a school with every child having a laptop and using the internet all the time, i realize now how important it is to oppose net neutrality. it could limit the way learn and grow all together as a society. We have access to almost anything we want to learn on the internet and this could very well be detrimental if changed.

      Like

  12. As with anything, the companies and folks that stand for or against net neutrality depend on what they stand to gain the most.

    The proponents of net neutrality generally are going to be the Software, social media, & internet companies such as any of the FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google) corporations. This is because with the internet provided to all people as a public utility or some could argue a human right, then more folks can utilize their services and platforms. This would drastically change the social media platforms presence and significantly increase the ad revenues for these companies.

    The opposers of net neutrality are the Internet Service Providers such as telecommunication companies. I have an insider’s perspective into this working in the telecom space and how net neutrality would have a significant impact on these organizations’ service offerings. Particularly with 5G implementation and the high cost of capital investment that new service connectivity and C BAND require, the primary incentive behind this is the incremental revenue it will garner for the organizations. If the internet was provided as a public utility, it’s unlikely there would be major advancements like this given the lack of money making incentive to evolve the network.

    All that being said, there is a HUGE technology gap in terms of who has access to technology to advance and better themselves and net neutrality would provide more of a level playing field for all regardless of race, economic status, financial means, and location. I personally haven’t been affected by net neutrality yet but my concerns lie in connectivity speeds and connectivity if net neutrality is in place.

    I wonder how affected I would be personally given my employment with telecom and how they would have to potentially restructure their workforce to meet such requirements.

    Like

    1. Hi Christian,
      I wanted to say I appreciate you giving your insight from the perspective of the telecom company. Like you mention, as with many things it comes down to the money. If a good return on investment does not exist for a project, the project will not be approved which is unfortunate in this case because it relates to very exciting improvements in technology. As much as people can point the finger at net neutrality being the issue, it really comes down to the lack of competition. The point of ROI on a project is it needs to make a good return based on the need of the service which is provided. If the enhancements provide a good service for consumers which they are willing to pay for, it will improve the business case and the ROI. With the lack of competition, the ISP controls the price and can artificially improve their own ROI by driving up the prices for the service. This is one of the reasons why I think having net neutrality in place is important.

      Like

  13. Hey everyone,

    All your conversations are so informative.

    My research on csq’s.

    1. Views of who is taking side of Neutrality..
    Many civil rights groups, such as the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press, Save The Internet, and Fight for the Future support net neutrality and they want to designate cable companies as common carriers, which would require them to allow Internet service providers (ISPs) free access to cable lines, the same model used for dial-up Internet. They want to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without a court order.

    I take partial stand on net neutrality’s side in politics and healthcare industry matters especially, because in the case with Bell Canada, Network Neutrality became a more popular topic when it was revealed that they were throttling traffic by limiting people’s accessibility to view Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister, which eventually led to the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) demanding the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to take action on preventing the throttling of third-party traffic.
    FCC’s recognizes that an open internet is essential for innovation and economic growth.

    In my belief, net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet because there is significant and growing competition among broadband access providers.

    Views of opponents of Net neutrality:
    John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of Verizon argued that they will have no incentive to make large investments to develop advanced fibre-optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies.
    Without additional regulations, Internet service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer hence my complete support is for internet service providers.

    2. Lack of net neutrality rules can have real-world consequences on wireless data prices, seeing higher costs for wireless data down the road according to a new study by Epicenter.

    3. Net neutrality should be Public utility and accepted by everyone already working home all day and the government has a responsibility to ensure that, one way or another, everyone has fair, reasonable, and affordable access. Utility regulations typically allow a number of features necessary for broadband, such as universal affordable access and service quality.

    Title II would mean the FCC can work towards universal service, and prevent digital redlining that leaves marginalized communities with slower and more expensive access than those in higher-income neighborhoods. This is fundamental for so many facets of our society, from students hit hard by the digital divide, to workers who are increasingly encouraged or required to use internet at home, to small businesses trying to reach new customers.

    Because we’ve seen what happens when it’s not treated as a public utility: consumers are at the mercy of ISPs for availability and price, as ISPs are incentivized to put profit before the public interest and it’s clearer now than ever how important high-speed internet access is necessary

    Like

    1. Hi Madhavi,

      I agree with your stance in regards to the dangers of no net neutrality or regulation of the internet. I believe it would leave too much power in the hands of the current telecommunication/cable providers, and they would price gouge their consumers. I’ve seen articles in the past that a lack of regulation may lead to a-la-carte internet services, where consumers would then be required to pick and pay for internet packages which would only allow them to access certain sites. In my opinion, that is a dangerous capitalistic approach to the internet and it would diminish the amount of freedom and sharing we currently have as users.

      Like

  14. 1) The Biden and Obama administration are the people who are supporters of net neutrality. They believe everyone should have the same internet access as everyone else. The people against it are the Trump administration. They believe bandwidth and government regulations on internet access are the way. Internet providers can be on both sides depending on the revenue they are making.
    2) If net neutrality were to be removed, i would be impacted because i use the internet for work and it could impact my assignments for school. Net neutrality is something that should be monitored and discussed to make sure the internet is being used the right way.
    3) I believe net neutrality should be treated as a public utility because some people might not have access to the internet and have access to their financial records or health information. Everyone should be given equal access no matter who you are or where you are.

    Like

  15. I think the internet should be continued to be considered a public utility. Given its use as a communication tool, especially with COVID-19, I think it is clear it is not only providing information, but also a means for communication. There was one key point which was raised against net neutrality which I thought was interesting. Without net neutrality in place, ISP’s could designate who receives necessary service based on need. This would have significant implications in emergency situations, to make sure communications are not lost when they are absolutely needed. While I do think this is a great point, I do not think net neutrality needs to be removed to have a form of this in place. For example, if the internet was deemed a public utility, the government could ensure that emergency services always have strong connection to the internet. Although many are against more government control over the industry, I think management of the internet for emergency situations would be acceptable.

    Like

    1. Hey David – I agree with your sentiment here. I think it would do more harm than good to not allow the internet to be considered a public utility. It has become such an integral part of our lives and how we learn and communicate. I do understand the counterpoint however. There are people who want to censor what is on the internet like parents who don’t want their children to stumble upon inappropriate content. You also mentioned the COVID-19 information and both sides to the vaccine debate likely want their opponent’s information removed. I don’t believe that would be a good idea in either case however, as I think it is our responsibility as consumers to regulate our own consumption.

      Like

  16. 1. In every debate, there are always 2 or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality and who is opposed to network neutrality? Who are the stakeholders and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?

    Those who are supportive of network neutrality are large internet companies and content providers, also known as the Openists. Oppositely, Deregulators are those who are against network neutrality. They consist mainly of cable companies because they want to be able to charge the customer for the amount of bandwidth that is consumed. The main stakeholders are the customers/users of the internet as well as the internet service providers. The arguments that can be made for the Openists is that, first, internet should not be regulated based on the service provider you have. A customer should have access to all of the contents found in the internet, without having to pay special fees to get access to other content. There are so many other implemented fees on the internet, such as subscriptions to sources and entertainment, that there shouldn’t be other charges a customer has to pay. Also, they may argue that there should be no determination of who is more deserving of using the bandwidth. The pandemic proved that there is no shortage of bandwidth to the high traffic volumes, so content regulation is unnecessary. From a business standpoint, the Deregulators can argue that network neutrality will cause major profit losses from the missed service fees that can be collected for the additional services. If they are having to pay more expenses for the increased internet uses, they should be able to charge their customers for it accordingly.

    Like

  17. 1. Established internet companies are in favor of network neutrality because it prevents cable companies and telecommunications from billing them based on the amount consumed by the content they deliver via the internet. Amazon and Netflix are examples of companies that are in favor of network neutrality because differentiated pricing would cause start-up companies with high-bandwidth consumption not to gain traction. Companies that are opposed to network neutrality prefer to charge different proceeds dependent on the amount of bandwidth that is consumed.

    2. Net neutrality reduces investment in internet services. As a consumer, this results in higher costs. For example, during 2015-2017, investment in broadband decreased for the first time ever in a non-recession period. As a customer of AT&T, I find it very interesting that the company described this decrease as a threat to slow the delivery of broadband services to their consumers. I believe I was affected by network neutrality during this period. Removing network neutrality will reduce competition in the market as it has created a level playing field for new companies. Startup companies would have a disadvantage against established companies that are granted a speed advantage through paid prioritization.

    3. The internet should not be treated as a public utility such as gas, water, and electricity. Treating the internet as a public utility would be expensive for taxpayers and will place further restraints on how the internet can be used. It could potentially make the internet a stagnant utility because the government might lose its motivation or incentive for internet innovation. The quality of the internet service will decrease if it becomes a public utility. I believe the system that is already in place for the internet is effective as it is

    I found the video below interesting about network neutrality as it relates to the topics being discussed.

    Like

  18. 2. Do you think you’ve been (or can be) affected by the removal of net neutrality? What are the downstream effects of removing network neutrality? Explain.

    I personally would not say that I have been affected by the removal of net neutrality but I can see the dangers of such an act. Most of us have grown up with the internet and have been able to access a wide variety of content. In that time, we have used the internet to network and socialize with others, as well as for educational purposes. We have a plethora of information at our fingertips and I feel that any level of tampering with that information is irresponsible.

    Such an act could lead to a lot of misinformation depending on who is regulating what information is available on the internet. We see today how dangerous such a campaign is with potential misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine. Whether you are someone who are in support of the vaccine or not, you should have access to credible sources via the internet (amongst other places) to make an informed decision. Allowing someone or something to deny information about the vaccine could be dangerous to anyone looking to understand more.

    Like

  19. 1. In every debate, there are always 2 or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality and who is opposed to network neutrality? Who are the stakeholders and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?
    The primary two sides of network neutrality are Openists who support and Deregulators who oppose.
    At the very outset, Openists present their case in favor of free speech, content/information free of restrictions, invasive commercial and political interests. Openists also want the internet to be treated as a service accessible to all equally. On the other side, Deregulators lobbied in favor of commercializing and prioritizing the services such as some cable companies and telecommunications like Verizon, AT& T
    Pandemic force people to adapt internet for their daily activities and living. Regulation and elimination of biased information Unless there are specific gateways dedicated, and should be the distribution of equal bandwidth to each user then, Net neutrality has no negative impacts as long as users are fine with the service

    2. Do you think you’ve been (or can be) affected by the removal of net neutrality? What are the downstream effects of removing network neutrality? Explain.
    Yes, the removal of net neutrality has negative impacts for sure; Prices inflated in the past couple of years making the internet an expensive service for the common man. Information bias is being flagged in several forums by Opinists (Mozilla etc.,) The information accessed offered during recent elections, raised flags on free information access and availability
    In today’s Pandemic situation internet has become an irreplaceable part of everyone’s life. With the wide range utilization, the internet has to offer there are a lot of different bundles providers are selling to consumers for a higher
    Charge with no choice but to pay it. With that being said, the removal of net neutrality will have a negative impact.
    Without Net neutrality, an unequal balanced could occur where larger companies could effort to cut deals with ISP
    Removing Net neutrality also can impact privacy where collection and use of consumers – browser history, purchases, etc,. Can be commercializing per invasive marketing. It also supports monopoly, eliminated healthy competition which promotes innovation.

    3. One framework for resolving the network neutrality issue that has been considered in the past and continues to be debated actively is the question of whether the internet should be treated as a public utility. Your thoughts and responses.
    I think a hybrid approach needs to be adopted. While free speech, equal access to information should be available for everyone inclusive of basic services [including the Internet as one] there needs to be a choice to opt for a higher level of access to support of pandemic/ post-pandemic lifestyles.

    Like

    1. Apologizes for type errors and missed content .reposting it again

      1. In every debate, there are always 2 or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality and who is opposed to network neutrality? Who are the stakeholders and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?
      The primary two sides of network neutrality are Openists who support and Deregulators who oppose.
      At the very outset Openists present their case in favor of free speech, content/information free of restrictions, invasive commercial and political interests. During the pandemic, availability of internet became one of the basic commodities for everyone to be connected. And, providers had a social responsibility to ensure internet service is not terminated due to pandemic related financial situations and make sure to allow free Wi-Fi services. Internet needs to be accessible to all equally.
      On the other side, Deregulators lobbied in favor of commercializing and prioritizing the services such as some cable companies and telecommunications like Verizon, AT& T. Net neutrality has no negative impacts if users are fine with the service. As long as users are comfortable in paying premium charges for specialty services, regulators should not come in the way of business interests.
      2. Do you think you’ve been (or can be) affected by the removal of net neutrality? What are the downstream effects of removing network neutrality? Explain.
      Yes, removal of net neutrality has negative impacts for sure; Prices inflated in the past couple of years making internet an expensive service for a common man. Information bias is being flagged in several forums by Opinists (Mozilla etc.,). The information accessed offered during recent elections, raised flags on free information access and availability
      In today’s Pandemic situation internet has become irreplaceable part in everyone’s life. With wide range utilization the internet has to offer, there are a lot of different bundles providers are selling to consumers for a higher charge with no choice but to pay it. With that being said, the removal of net neutrality will have a negative impact.

      3. One framework for resolving the network neutrality issue that has been considered in the past and continues to be debated actively is the question of whether the internet should be treated as a public utility. Your thoughts and responses.
      I think a hybrid approach needs to be adopted. While equal access to information should be available for everyone through the availability of Internet, the users should be allowed to opt their choice of services such as higher speeds, specific content at a price.

      Like

  20. In every debate, there are always two or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality, and who is opposed to network neutrality? Who are the stakeholders, and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?

    In the debate over Net Neutrality, the consumers in the middle-class support net neutrality because if Internet Service Providers can slow down the speeds of the Internet, they can quickly increase prices for data delivery and abuse the system. The opposers of Net Neutrality are these exact telecommunication companies/other ISPs like Verizon and AT&T. They would instead increase prices on data delivery and communication online to gauge their consumers for more money. Net Neutrality opponents favor regulation of the industry because more deregulation means that they can participate in more schemes to take more cash from their loyal customers. In this scenario, the stakeholders are the customers and the telecommunication companies/ISPs. The ISPs and telecom companies can argue that the repeal of Net Neutrality can allow them to charge more for Internet Service in a heavily competitive market. Being able to charge different prices for data delivery will allow for less competition in the communications industry. Consumers can argue that this is price-gouging and that charging higher fees for information delivery violates the Clayton Act, a federal antitrust law that disallows unfair price-fixing and other monopolistic acts of greed that seek to hurt the consumer for more corporate profit.

    Like

  21. 1. In every debate, there are always 2 or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality and who is opposed to network neutrality? Who are the stakeholders and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?

    -Supporters of net neutrality include: small businesses, Openists (content providers i.e Disney), Obama administration, Biden administration
    -Arguments for supporters of net neutrality: promotes freedom of expression, innovation and positive competition; ensures that paid prioritization and internet fast lanes cannot exist, providing unlimited access to the internet for everyone.

    -Opponents of net neutrality include: large internet companies (i.e Facebook, Google, Youtube), Deregulators (cable providers), U.S. telecommunications companies (AT&T and Verizon), Republican members of FCC and GOP,
    -Arguments against net neutrality: less network innovation due to a lack of sufficient funds for service innovation, removing net neutrality would decrease shady and explicit content and charging for some websites (that aren’t crucial for survival) can allow other websites to be provided for free.

    Certain stakeholders such as T-Mobile and Sprint remain relatively neutral because they stated that they won’t be impacted by net neutrality.

    2. Do you think you’ve been (or can be) affected by the removal of net neutrality? What are the downstream effects of removing network neutrality? Explain.

    Everyone was impacted by the removal of net neutrality (whether it is positive or negative depends on each individual/entity). I, in particular, was negatively impacted by the removal of net neutrality. I noticed that[INSERT]. However, there are still additional ways that I can be impacted in the future. Firstly, I may have to pay to access certain premium websites on the internet under a bundling system. As a small business owner, corporations with lots of money could pay to have their content prioritized over mine which would result in decreased sales and revenue. Removing net neutrality essentially allows those with the most money and resources to control access to the internet and subsequently, the information and content that is prioritized and disseminated resulting in a dangerous monopoly.

    3. One framework for resolving the network neutrality issue that has been considered in the past and continues to be debated actively is the question of whether the internet should be treated as a public utility. Your thoughts and responses.

    I believe that the internet should be treated as a public utility. The pandemic caused us to shift from in person to virtual, remote work and schooling. Many services today are provided via the internet such as grocery delivery, delivery of goods, and email. The dissemination of important information such as where the vaccine is available and national news is often done solely through social media and other online websites. Email, especially, is used to provide important and immediate information such as bills, insurance information, legal notices, etc. Since technology has become so prevalent in today’s society and most communication is done via the internet, it is only fair to treat the internet as a public utility.

    Like

  22. 1. As referenced in the article, “The Net Neutrality Debate: The Basics,” the players of net neutrality can be grouped into two sides, Deregulators vs. Openists. Deregulators are those who are opposed to net neutrality. Deregulators can be the cable companies. Openists are supportive of network neutrality. Openists can be content providers such as Disney. The main stakeholders ultimately are the consumers. If the content a consumer is trying to access whether it is for entertainment or business is slower, then they are going to question the content provider or the Internet provider. The large internet companies such as Verizon or Comcast are in favor of net neutrality as it prevents cable companies from billing them based on the amount consumed. It is based on the amount of bandwidth consumed.

    2. I think we can be affected by the removal of net neutrality. Our reliance on the Internet has greatly increased for most of us during the COVID-19 pandemic. We are now relying on the Internet to work remotely without any interruptions. We also rely on it for entertainment and streaming content. If network neutrality is removed, the downstream effects could impact our everyday lives. As shown in the New York Times video on network neutrality, is the governance of how content is “shipped and packaged” from the content providers through the Internet and cable services. Without network neutrality, the consumer could be impacted by slower service, being deprioritized versus other users, and ultimately the costs of the Internet or content providers increasing. There will be less competition available among the service providers.

    3. The Internet should be treated as a public utility. We should each have the freedom to access the content we need when we want to. Service providers should not be able to block our content, require the consumer to pay more for select content, and overall prioritize the speed or content we want to view first. In my own experience, when I work from home, I tend to stream content in the background. I have a heavy reliance on the Internet. Network neutrality is important and should continue to a topic that is discussed because it could affect all of us.

    Like

  23. In every debate, there are always 2 or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality and who is opposed to network neutrality? Who are the stakeholders and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?

    Many large internet companies and organizations like amazon are supportive of network neutrality. These large companies are supportive because this would prevent internet providers and telecommunications companies from billing customers based on the amount consumed by the content accessed and used via the internet. Companies that are opposed to network neutrality prefer to charge different prices depending on the amount of bandwidth that is consumed. Large companies like Google and Facebook are supportive of network neutrality because the fluctuating pricing would cause start-up companies with high-bandwidth consumption not to gain traction. They would spend huge amounts on the internet that it would be hard for them to get off the ground and established as a company. I think that the main stakeholders are the customers and the internet providers. The argument that each side can present is that the customers want to have internet that is equal to all without having to pay based on usage while the providers can say to pay which could help regulate internet usage but in turn make the providers more money.

    Do you think you’ve been (or can be) affected by the removal of net neutrality? What are the downstream effects of removing network neutrality? Explain.

    I do not believe that I have or will be affected by the removal of net neutrality. While I do use the internet on a regular basis like everyone else, I do not use it to the degree of it affecting me financially. This could affect people running an online business, people working from home or others that use the internet above the average person. I think that the main downstream effects of removing network neutrality would be less new companies. New technology and tech companies would have a hard time getting started. Companies like Tesla would have probably never existed if this would happen.

    One framework for resolving the network neutrality issue that has been considered in the past and continues to be debated actively is the question of whether the internet should be treated as a public utility. Your thoughts and responses.

    In my opinion the Internet should not be treated as a public utility. I think this because it will be like having to pay per your consumption. This could get expensive especially in the future. The internet is being used more and more for all devices. Our homes, cars and much more use the internet 24/7 and are only going to continue to grow. With the pandemic many people were forced to work from home, this could have cost workers a lot of money.aslo many people are using streaming services instead of cable because it is a cheaper option, although without network neutrality it could be the same amount or even more. This is why the Internet should not be treated as a public utility.

    Like

  24. In every debate, there are always 2 or more sides. Who is supportive of network neutrality and who is opposed to network neutrality? Who are the stakeholders and what arguments could each side present to support their stance?

    In the debate over network neutrality, they key players in my opinion are the public, who consumes the data on the internet, the data providers, who want their information to be consumed, read, watched, etc. and the internet service providers who are in the position to limit the data that is consumed. Obviously, with the concept of limiting network neutrality and who can have access to different data, it could be considered an infringement on freedom of speech. On the other hand, could you say that some data has more value than other data? Could some platforms be charged more to release data. Internet service providers could potentially have that argument

    Do you think you’ve been (or can be) affected by the removal of net neutrality? What are the downstream effects of removing network neutrality? Explain.

    I think it might be difficult to identify if I was affected by net neutrality. I do believe that if net neutrality ceased to exist, I could be affected, but like most people, If we get the data we are looking for, we don’t really think about the behind-the-scenes process. It could become a slippery slope however, and more and more data could be affected and more platforms could be limited. It might take time but it could become noticeable over the long run.

    One framework for resolving the network neutrality issue that has been considered in the past and continues to be debated actively is the question of whether the internet should be treated as a public utility. Your thoughts and responses.

    I feel like there are certain aspects of the internet that have become essential to society, email, news outlets and certain services from companies. Over time, the internet has become more and more for entertainment. I feel like there could be a dividing line between the two “sides” of the internet (service and entertainment). The service side could definitely be defined as a utility to which all should have access to.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s