Net-neutrality is the principle that providers of Internet services enable access to all contents with no prejudice or discrimination against sites or products regardless of the source. In December, the U.S. government repealed the national regulations that prevented “Internet Service Providers from blocking legal content, throttling traffic or prioritizing content on their broadband networks” in favor of a “looser set of requirements that ISPs disclose any blocking or prioritization of their own content.” In summary, the government has decided to change net-neutrality and make it easier to profit from. The government’s want, and subsequent success, to change the strict guidelines by which net-neutrality operated with is supported by the Chairman
As some of us might know there has been a passionate debate on the issue of the net neutrality in which there is strong feelings on both sides of the debate. Net neutrality is the idea government should regulate the internet so that the major telecommunications companies won’t be able to turn the internet landscape into a monopoly. This paper will examine both sides of the net neutrality debate in which the content of this paper will explore both the pro and cons of net neutrality. At the end of the paper I will reveal my true thoughts about net neutrality and will discuss what I have learned about this issue in the process.
A free internet is not one that is unregulated nor is one that is strictly regulated. There exists an elusive measure existing the spectrum that must be fulfilled without tainting the uniqueness of the internet. Two key features of a free internet, net neutrality and online freedom of speech, must be maintained throughout.
With the issue of network neutrality arising, David Farber expresses his side of the argument. His opinion is that network neutrality may seem fair for the users and that network services seems to be secretive to its customers, however that is not the case. He portrays the downsides of the attempts of the government leaning over network neutrality and the most reasonable way for services and users to cooperate. This way, he has a strong stance for his side of the issue of network neutrality. (Farber, 2009)
In Network Neutrality Nuances, David Farber makes a contrasting counterpoint to Barbara van Schewick’s piece of net neutrality protecting us from abuse from our ISPs. Farber states that because the internet has always regulated itself over the course of its nature and is continuing to grow increasingly with no issues, we should continue to let the internet self-regulate. Thus David Farber is suggesting that the government and legislators take a reactive stance on the internet because over the course of the internet’s history it has shown to be growing exponentially. Farber continues to analyze the history of net neutrality and comes to the conclusion that any legislation that attempts to manage the internet will fail due to the incompetence of legislations regarding the internet as demonstrated by history. Farber attempts to inductively explain the pretense behind the legislations against net neutrality; however some of his examples ultimately fail to support his conclusion due to his very apparent position against legislators
With the world population being 7,259,902,243 people, a grossly huge amount of people use the Internet, the number being 3,366,261,156 people worldwide. That ends up being almost half of the population, the percentage being 46.4% I one hundred percent disagree with the “decision” of the government ridding of the Internet entirely, as if that isn't clear enough already. Though the government might find the termination of the Internet useful in some circumstances, I have no doubt that it may result in riots, violence, protests, and more in order to get it
David Farber’s Counterpoint in “Net Neutrality Nuances” by Barbara Schewick and David Farber brings up a different perspective and analysis on the issue of Net Neutrality. Instead of agreeing with the opinion of the majority and supporting the idea of the government regulating the behavior of ISPs when it comes to the internet, he argues that the government should simply leave it undisturbed and refrain from passing any laws regarding net neutrality. He believes the government progress will only slow down and hinder the actual solution, which he believes is to let the internet work itself out and resolve its own problems as it has done so in the past. While he brings up valid counterpoints to Barbara Schewick’s points that support regulation, David
Imagine living in a world without any internet. Imagine the amount of trouble a person would require to go through in order to find out the simplest things. The internet nowadays has become an essential part of almost every human being’s life. Cutting the internet off for just one day my actually leave the world in a state of commotion. Every type of technology may be used in either a way that benefit’s a person, or a way that may harm a person.
In 1988, the Internet was opened to the public. At that time, not many people were aware of what a huge impact the Internet would have on the lives of future generations and cultures. While it was at first widely accepted by many users because of its astonishingly convenient and unlimited access to information, the enthusiasm for the Internet has more recently diminished and even disappeared in some cases. Many people no longer view the Internet as a helpful tool, but more as a harmful weapon, attacking every area of our lives, including education, communication, literacy, attention span, memory, intelligence, relationships, politics, economics, even sleep, diet, and physical activity. The Internet is ultimately affecting and determining the
in the four major power networks Domhoff explains that there are ways the Power Elite can influence power and wealth and even influence the government and population in a planned manner, thereby making it possible to asses it’s degree of success very directly. (p.16) The first power network is the special interest process which deals with policy concerns of the Power Elite. A select few of lobbyist that came from corporations and law firms and even trade associations play a very meaningful role when it came to shaping the government on narrow issues of concern to specific corporations or businesses and even find top level governmental appointees to implement those policies.(p.161) For example, The Magazine Publishers of America paid a lobbyist firm $520,000 to disagree to a more than likely 15 percent increase in magazine postal rates.(p.174) Special interests groups also work through congress to halt regulatory agencies, for example, when the FDA tried to regulate tobacco, Congress refused access in the year 2000 in deference to the tobacco industry.
Interest groups use a variety of tools and political venues to affect decision making and wield a significant source of power for federal agencies (Yackee, 2006). Interest groups participate in both controversial and lower profile rules, although many times, the controversial topics seem to receive the most attention, especially in the public eye (Natow, 2015). They are able to sway public opinion and raise awareness concerning policy issues faced by the agency.
The strength of this article is that it is informative and brief. However the weakness of this article is that it’s mostly opinion based. My third article is “how is internet changing the way you think”. It’s based on different views of people about how the internet is changing the way we think. The strength of this article is that it’s very much brief.
"¬†¬†In our World, threats to our Country are common and are becoming frequent. Issues like bullying, extremism, terrorism, and even the illegal production and distribution of drugs threaten all parts of the world more than ever. Not to mention, our increasing dependence on technology for business transactions, work, school, and storage of information has opened up a medium to effectuate these actions. The use of the internet no doubt is beneficial but like anything else, it can, and has been put to ill use. Controversy has been stirred up concerning the monitoring of internet content by the government.
" Our generation is one known for the internet. Many of us have never known a world without the internet. A good thing about that is that we stay informed on subjects from all around. A bad thing is cyber-bullying and negativity. But no matter what negative or positive place we withhold on the internet, one thing that stays the same is government control. Agencies watch the things we post in order to catch criminals and make sure terrorists have little control in convincing. Now this can be a good thing but if the power goes to far it could be a violation of our rights and privacy. Which goes against the constitution. The government should have limits to how much power they have on the internet for the safety and rights of our people. A good thing is to realize what rights we have on the internet and watch what we post.