The Net Neutrality Debate in the United States

The term ‘network neutrality’ (NN) was first coined by law professor and journalist Tim Wu in 2002. In using this word, Professor Wu chose to explain the very fact that no authority could decide what information was or was not available online in accordance with him. The idea of network neutrality has grown since 2002 with this first reference to network neutrality by Wu. Net neutrality today means that all internet traffic will be handled in the same manner without allowing internet service companies the correct opportunity to dam or impede connections to particular websites. Net neutrality also prohibits providers of internet services from charging customers so that they may induce a stronger service. It does not restrict, block, or throttle any content. This principle of net neutrality may be a heavily discussed issue today because multiple nations are seeking to decide how to regulate it. These network neutrality rules are distinct from one nation to another.

An example can be found in Europe where European Union-wide network neutrality security regulation 2015/2120 was introduced. With regards to Europe, things in the US are more difficult when it comes to upholding network neutrality. Furthermore, the implementation of a law protecting network neutrality during Barack Obama’s administration which was repealed by Donald Trump has generated controversy about the importance of network neutrality within the

US community

In this essay, we will focus on the current situation in the United States where two parties are opposed: those on the one side in favor of net neutrality and those on the other in support of a ‘free internet’ without regulation. The debate will focus on if there should be net neutrality, in which case all internet subscribers, blogs, networks must get the same internet speed or if there should be a VIP lane for the internet users who can spend the extra money and make exclusive deals with the internet provider to give them faster bandwidth.

After the Internet was developed and democratized, certain mechanisms have been placed into action to try to control it. Therefore the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in the United States. The purpose of the FCC is to control international contact outlets such as tv, radio, and most recently Twitter. The FCC issued a policy in 2015, during the presidency of Barack Obama: the Free Internet Policy that aimed at preserving network neutrality in the United States. As a part of this new law, high-speed Internet was accepted as a telephone service rather than an information service as it was traditionally known. Information networks are classified under the section ‘Title I’ of the U.S. Communications Act and are limited by fewer relevant regulations than ‘Title II’ systems that classify more highly controlled telecommunications services. The main effect of moving the Internet from a ‘title I’ service to a ‘title II’ service is to strengthen its regulation, and the protection of net neutrality was part of this change.

But then the election of President Trump came in 2017. He named Ajit Pai to preside over the Federal Communications Commission as its chairman. Pai had been a prosecutor for Verizon, one of the Internet Service Providers in the United States, a few years before being elected to this position. Several citizens had suspected him and still do, of always being loyal to Verizon, and of behaving in compliance with their wishes. In November 2017, Ajit Pai very soon declared his intention to abolish the network neutrality legislation. The FCC voted in December 2017 to revoke the Open Internet Order which had been formed only two years earlier. As a result, Internet service providers gain more power over the internet and now have the option of choosing slower speeds for some websites or have customers pay for higher service access. This policy is widely contested in the United States since it is accepted by Internet Service Providers, while some businesses and citizens condemn this. In 2017, Mozilla and Ipsos had performed a poll on net neutrality with American citizens.

The result was that US people support net neutrality by 76 percent. In this percentage, 81 percent of Democrats favor net neutrality versus 73 percent of Republicans. Such findings indicate that much of the general sentiment in the United States is in favor of a law that supports net neutrality. And President Trump’s election as a Republican president is no reason for abolishing this rule since most Republican electors are still in favor of net neutrality. This caused many to ask why Trump’s government decided to take any action to eliminate net neutrality. This shouldn’t come as a surprise however, as since 2014 Donald Trump has remained strongly hostile to the principle of net neutrality. Back then, he was among those that considered Barack Obama’s inclination towards net neutrality as only a ‘political grab’.

The repeal of the network neutrality policy has several beneficial effects, according to Ajit Pai. In his opinion, if there were net neutrality, there will be a loss of revenue raised by consumers and online sites – revenue which could be reinvested to offer decent coverage for all, even those in poor communities. He even contends that many marinas do not have internet access and that it is to blame the net neutrality law.

With the repeal of this law, ISPs will be able to extend its service to rural areas. Pai’s other points are that if consumers of Internet service companies aren’t satisfied with their service they should adjust it by picking an ISP that’s ideally designed by them. In truth, this claim isn’t useful due to the lack of Internet service provider option diversity in the United States. Pai also argues that less control is a means of bringing more creativity. His opinion is that eliminating the policy provides a more dynamic market environment. Even though Pai wants to demonstrate the possible value that consumers will receive, his proposal simply underlines his intention to preserve the interests of Internet service providers. In other terms, the network neutrality protections established by the Obama presidency, the service companies were stopped from doing what they desired.

The abolition of this legislation enables them to reclaim their strength. This brings us to the infamous case of net neutrality loss occurred in the U.S. where Verizon Communication Inc. sued the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC) sued in 2010 because of overpowering control over them as an internet service provider. The FCC argued that wireless and wired internet would be handled in the same manner as public services (such as gas and water) and would be governed by the government, utilizing principles of net neutrality. Verizon, which was a big internet company, found those arguments ridiculous and originally prevailed in the court of law, undermining the laws regulating net neutrality which has been imposed on users of the Internet service. However, the FCC returned with that statement that internet service providers are public utilities and ultimately prevailed, ensuring that all internet service consumers would have to obey net neutrality laws from 2014.

The FCC Open Internet Order of 2010 was initially made up of three orders, out of which two were voided (https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacated) (no censorship and no unfair discrimination) and one was retained (transparency). This not only surprised mobile wireless internet operators, but also impacted all companies that operate internet cables in homes for citizens. This suggested that Internet services are so important in the present day that they ought to be controlled in a specific manner. This also destroyed the entire notion that the internet is a creative, incredible environment, the concept that tiny start-ups had the same chances of competition as the major internet monopolies.

It was because of internet freedom that tiny start-ups like Facebook, which started from the laptop of a Cambridge student, could go out and distribute and show their value to their rivals in a reasonable manner. And of course, Facebook achieved exactly that and added 600 million daily users when its equal rivals such as Myspace were pressured to slash prices, lay off employees, and ultimately lose $350 million and become an unplugged virtual entertainment site. If the internet sacrifices its independence, where is the sportsmanship in the ‘internet running race’? If the major companies will pay off ISPs to prioritize their company over a new competitor, it would no longer be just.

Netflix Inc argued that large providers generated congestion with the removal of net neutrality, which had to obey the open-web rules (after the Verizon Vs FCC case). At first, Netflix’s consumer services were shockingly bad (with poor connections and a constant start-up) so Netflix used a short-term solution to route the video content around the jams by transferring them to different Verizon channels. The solution. Verizon suspected Netflix of not adequately handling the streaming. In this situation, it can be claimed that to retain subscribers, Netflix sought to give consumers a decent quality and handled faster communications across various channel fluxes. On the other hand, it can also be considered that Netflix benefited from offering the same service without paying a fee for quicker internet access. The popular opinion is also that Netflix is less responsible with net neutrality as the Internet service companies and Netflix have already signed exclusive arrangements. Many news media have reported private matching arrangements between Netflix and ISPs verified by Netflix.

This adds to the “for” side of net neutrality, as certain people may want the Internet regulated to limit what Internet service providers control. If there is no regulation, these ISPs are going to threaten internet openness because they will have immense power. The content that users will access or not may also lie in their hands. Such people think everybody should have access to the same rights. The fact that certain businesses can provide better service by charging more is a contrast to democratic countries’ principles.

The owners and suppliers of energy facilities are the clearest winners from the evidence. They will have more space to operate without net neutrality, so as a result of rendering the internet economy implausible, ISPs would charge a premium for faster entry. Corporations can protect by demanding compensation from their consumers, e.g. ‘Google package’ who sells it does not have to pay because they want to access the social networking platform. Such companies can in principle be our own. Some voices may also claim that the young generation needs to respond to this new age of demand and that we need to make it easier for companies to compete with each other and consumers to pick and choose the service that is better suited to them. Many telecommunications providers also argue that even if the law were reversed, consumers in their daily life will not note the change in internet use. Eliminating the network neutrality law allows them to opt-out of viewing other pages or blocking others, even if it doesn’t mean that they’re able to do it.

It can also be remembered that service companies have to take account of the public sentiment. A sign of an Internet provider losing subscribers was when AT&T in 2007 and 2009 prevented iPhone users from using certain devices, including Skype, to compel their clients to use AT&T-provided applications. The same thing occurred in 2012 when AT&T imposed a cap for apple users on FaceTime, and this irritated many people using apple items. Unless there was net neutrality, such a thing should not be achieved with a company asking for an additional fee to access a computer that comes with the product, and thus the customer base.

Finally, it should be noted that certain perpetrators of net neutrality argue that NN gives the government more power to control what is written and that the internet will stay independent under the laws of each jurisdiction. The lack of net neutrality may potentially be helpful for ISPs because they don’t have to pay on a higher ‘lanes’ capacity (for everyone to have equal access), however, they get the financial capital from venture companies who want a better connection.

Although there are many very specific concerns about the relevance of fair access to the Internet, from a controversial point of view it is still important to address this issue. Having an educated and conscious population is crucial for civilized decision making in a democratic society. Access to opinions, educating materials, discussions, information, and raw data entails gathering knowledge to participate in society. However, when there is an extra charge to be paid for basic internet access based on who a person is and where the information comes from, minor societies who are unable to afford the different prices may be at a disadvantage. For example, whether you have energy and gas in your home, whether your Romanian or Hispanic or your salary is above a certain amount, you will not pay a higher price. If you live in a poorer area after it has become a regulated utility you don’t have to pay extra for telephones.

Therefore, placing various rates on basic Internet service may be very risky on a social basis to split populations within a community and maybe build tensions by eliminating minorities’ political opportunities. It’s one thing if a person decides to fly by train and purchase a ticket. The fare can be more costly with luxuries, e.g. champagne and push-seats, but everybody will have the standard ticket available. Additionally, if the news and information flow for a healthy democracy do not support the well-informed and well-educated electorate, then the economy, culture, and society can suffer. In a way, if people are not well informed, a country can begin to develop backward when compared to other countries where there is open Internet access. One way that funding could potentially continue to occur is to charge a higher luxury price to keep the basic information level afloat.

On the other hand, however, one can argue that information is costing money, even the world today. Clarification, it all costs money, and as demand for a better, faster Internet and more and more information to some, putting a price tag on increasing demand may not seem like a gigantic travesty. For example, even today television companies charge more for better channels, popular television shows such as Game of Thrones on HBO, or the hippest and upcoming movies are not available for the huge masses just the people who are willing to pay extra for a better service. This can also make the television channel (HBO) feel more special, and more treasured and exciting is Game of Thrones that not everyone can watch. It’s like opening a huge public library as yet another example. But you have to pay for entering the library or borrowing a book tax.

Of course, it is not to suggest that all libraries will be put under a lock and key so that only people that are from a higher-class section of the city may visit, and whose pay is over a certain amount and may borrow any books. This may be an injustice but having the library accessible to everyone and opting for a minimal charge in return for a book is not a disaster. From a differing viewpoint, it can be seen as an act against human rights to disallow the creation of information on the Internet and regulating it with fees. As mentioned earlier, entertainment services and products may be a big business to charge more, but it may not be as empowering to charge more for every user’s ability to create news and culture and engage in conversations with people all over the world.

Not only can this be a shock for the average Internet user, but important topics are discussed on social media and used to spread awareness through the platforms. The Black Lives Matter Campaign, for example, was ignited on Twitter and gradually gave way to a series of mass protests in general and gained a lot of media coverage and recognition of the topic. This may not have been achieved without the practice of freedom of expression on social media. Social media numbers can also be viewed and considered as if seven out of ten adult Americans regularly use at least one social media outlet a day than those numbers could drop significantly if it becomes pricey from one day to the next. The Internet has played an increasingly large part in political expression and organization, not to mention. Barack Obama was the first president to use the Internet for his campaign that changed politics fundamentally.

Several concerns remain unanswered at the end of this study, the point of limitation in NN may be studied by potential researchers. Limiting travel if an individual can’t afford it, they just won’t fly, might be appropriate. If anyone decides to travel to an exotic venue, they will pay, but pay to speak? It remains a topic for others, however as this article seeks to interpret net neutrality from the ISP point of view, the final gatherings can be contained in the conclusion below.

Numerous observations on web consumer trafficking have been considered if this should be accessed equally or given priority only to some. The degree to which this issue affects one or reverse depends on the location of the individual. Unquestionably, this issue is much more discussed in the U.S. due to laws that put net neutrality in jeopardy. EU legislation explicitly enshrines the freedom of a customer to be ‘free to view and share material and knowledge, to operate applications and to use their preferred services.’

Specific provisions ensure that national authorities can enforce that new right. In other terms, it is less of a significant problem if one stays in Europe, but the U.S.A. as one of the world’s main forces will filter back on the majority of the globe and affect the actions of other nations. The main worry, to conclude, is freedom of speech. While it is true that in the modern world entertainment and information cost money, including academics and memberships in the library. Maybe the simple level of knowledge will not be sold to the populace of minor populations, based on pay rates and personal histories. All need the same chance, the same starting point and if you build yourself up to the prospect of affording better luxuries then it would be.

Net neutrality will be implemented because major monopolies who can offer exclusive ISP agreements would still have the privilege. We do deserve to work up the ladder and carry on developing, without the usage of minor start-up bigotry. One is not a fan of extremism, in this case, net neutrality legislation must be passed with some exceptions, but that is for the ISPs and companies to decide among themselves.