Net Neutrality Rules

On February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission passed the Title II Net Neutrality rules. These rules will be enforced by the FCC and will protect the American people when it comes to the use of the Internet. Some people say that this is a major part of history because of the way the Internet has changed and enriched lifestyles. Research suggests that Net Neutrality will benefit all Internet users because it protects consumers against blocking of content, prevents throttling of all traffic, prevents favoritism to certain interests, and insures the customer's safety from prioritizing any specific content or traffic. These rules apply to all fixed and wireless internet providers in the United States, and Net Neutrality and its
principals have been an issue since the 1990's. Several Internet Service Providers have challenged these rules in court, and there are wins on both sides when it comes to the enforcement of Net Neutrality. These rules officially went into effect on June 12, 2015. (Riberio, J 2015)

Net Neutrality has been debated for two decades or more and the FCC has been in and out of Federal Court with Internet Service Providers mainly up to this point in 2015. All Internet Service Provides were classified as Information Services and were not subject to regulation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Verzion, for an example, in 2010 won the ruling against the FCC when the FCC put in effect Net Neutrality rules and all ISP's at the time were classified as Information Services and not Common Carriers under Title II. (Brodkin, J 2014) Verizon filed the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (Brodkin, J 2014)

The term Net Neutrality was created in 2003, and basically the term means that all internet traffic should be treated equally. Net Neutrality has defined specific ideals that are based on protecting and preserving the idea that we should have an open and free Internet. The Internet should be accessible to anyone, at time, regardless what content is being delivered. Net Neutrality advocates argue that allowing providers the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery would create an exploitative business model. If allowed to do so, any Internet Service Provider would be viewed as the gatekeeper of the Internet. Advocates warn that by charging websites for access, network owners may be able to block competitor websites and services, as well as restrict access to those who are unable or refuse to pay. Each main point in this thesis will be explained in this paper.

First, Internet Service Providers have made statements that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's Net Neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of broadband providers because the regulations take away their ability to block web traffic they disagree with. (Brodkin, J 2014) The new rules that are in place as of February 2015, would prevent the ISP's from doing so. Allowing the ISP's to block content as they see fit would destroy Net Neutrality to its foundation and would send a message that censorship is appropriate behavior to practice. The reason why the Internet Service Providers want to block content is due to the competition of smaller ISP’s and TV providers. They also want to be able to block content like Netflix, if Netflix fails to pay more money to the ISP to deliver their content. The ISP’s claim that video services like Netflix are broadband intensive and it is costing them more money when it comes to maintaining their networks.

Second, Internet Service providers are seeking to throttle data that comes over their networks. As of February 2015, all Internet Service Providers are not allowed to impair or degrade lawful traffic based on its content, applications, services, and any devices that are not harmful to the security of the open Internet. (Open Internet, 2015). For an example, Comcast was throttling and blocking content from P2P services like BitTorrent in 2007. (Network Management, 2008) When the FCC and Comcast went to trial in 2008, the FCC was ruled in favor and Comcast was in violation of Net Neutrally laws of 2006. The FCC handed Comcast a cease-and-desist order and it made Comcast require disclosing to consumers how it will manage traffic in the future. If Internet Service Providers were allowed to throttle the content, then the delivery of all information could be delayed. This is especially true to video services like Netflix and YouTube since they are bandwidth intensive. Throttling of these services would make them unusable, and it is not fair to the consumer who pays Netflix and the ISP for services rendered.

Third, Internet Service Providers would like to create a slow lane and a fast lane when it comes to the delivery of content over the Internet. This would promote favoritism to those who have direct interest with the consumer and the ISP. If the consumer pays extra for their content to be prioritized it will be delivered in the fast lane that the ISP's will create. As of February 2015, the Net Neutrality rules prevent paid prioritization. This being said some sources say that the subject of Paid Prioritization is still open for debate, even when the new rules went into effect in 2015. Netflix has openly admitted that is has paid Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon to help solve its issues of its delivery of video content at the front gate. (Bookman, S 2015) Also, Internet Service Providers are also being accused of capping the data usage on Internet users as well. There are many Americans who are against this practice since most families have several users that use You Tube, Netflix, and other services that require extensive data usage and bandwidth. (Sasso, B 2015)

Therefore, the benefits of Net Neutrality formed the Internet in two essential ways. One, web clients are allowed to associate with whatever site or administration they need. ISPs don't usually trouble themselves with what kind of data and traffic is going through their servers. This has permitted the web to develop into a worldwide system and has permitted individuals to unreservedly convey what needs be. For instance, you can scrutinize your ISP on a blog entry and the ISP would not restrict access to that particular post for its difference of opinion, despite the fact that the post may hurt its business.

In any case, more significantly, the Internet has empowered a level playing field on the web. To begin a site, you needn't bother with bucket load of cash or associations. Any Internet user can simply have a website built and you are ready to be part of the World Wide Web. You don't need to converse with ISPs to put your site on the web as well. This has prompted the creations of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Yahoo for example. These administrations had extremely humble beginnings. They began as an essential sites with not a lot of money . Be that as it may, they succeeded in light of the fact that Internet fairness permitted the web clients to get themselves put on the map and become popular. Net Neutrality is responsible for this taking place.

The United States Telecom Association is suing the Federal Communications Commission over lack of unbiased in the interest of the nation's telecom organizations, the association disclosed its body of evidence against the Commission, contending the FCC exceeded its power in reclassifying mobile and hard wire ISP's as Telecommunications Providers.
(Finley, K 2015). Dozen of Internet Service Providers, including the big companies like, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon are against Net Neutrality because they say that the rules are too restrictive. Net Neutrality will prevent ISP's from doing what they want with all the content and traffic that they deliver. Internet Service Providers also claim Net Neutrality will hinder investment and innovation.

As of December when I wrote this research paper the battle of Net Neutrality is still on going. Several lobbyist are still trying to kill Net Neutrality. Several providers are suing the FCC for reclassifying them under Title II. The future of Net Neutrality is still in question and at any time the rules can be changed or be taken
away.

In conclusion its without a doubt numerous individuals dread government regulation of anything and an unhindered internet enactment is the same.
For this situation, the Internet Service Providers have demonstrated that the business sector will just hurt consumers if there is no administration intercession. By permitting any Internet Service Provider to level the web, consumers will be compelled to pay numerous times for the same services and access it has had since the beginning of the World Wide Web. On top of that, tiering could bring about the Internet Service Provider turning into a gate keeper of the Internet. This could have extreme influence what stays and goes on the web. Enforcing data caps and throttling data speeds can make the most popular services and websites slow to deliver content or just be unusable to begin with. It also will limit the usage and the time spend on the
Internet.