In an increasingly connected world, the Internet has played a pivotal role in defining the future of how we as a society interact and communicate. Between social networking, financial and even magazine websites, we find ourselves spending more time on the internet than ever before. However, as more individuals begin to use internet, a pressing issue has begun to test the very fabric of the internet as we know it.
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers and governments regulating internet traffic should treat all internet traffic equally, and not discriminate by website, user or platform (Wu, 2013). As usage of the internet has grown over the past decades, internet service providers (ISP) have proposed various forms of pricing schemes and policy proposals which would violate the principle of neutrality, specifically charging websites and internet users differentially based on their internet activity and traffic. Many watchdog groups and internet companies have protested any proposals that challenge the principle of net neutrality, arguing that a free and open internet, free of any industry regulation or manipulation, is absolutely essential to its overall purpose of the free exchange of knowledge and ideas (Cite). The debate surrounding net neutrality has taken place in the public arena for nearly a decade. In 2007, it was discovered that cable provider Comcast was intentionally throttling the internet speeds of users who used file-sharing networks to share documents and media with their friends and family (Svensson 2007). Upon further investigation, it appeared that Comcast took this action in order to keep file-sharing traffic from consuming up too much bandwidth and subsequently hampering the Internet speeds of other subscribers. While many understood that Comcast’s actions were a genuine attempt to improve the quality of its network, many were afraid of the precedent that it could set for the future. In 2010, Comcast was accused again of violating the principle of net neutrality, when the company threatened to block Netflix from its network unless it was willing to pay a fee to stream content over the Comcast network. Another well-known case regarding net neutrality took in place in 2006, when Verizon Communications accused Google of “freeloading” off of their network (Mohammed 2006). Between 2005 and 2010, Verizon undertook a major (and expensive) initiative to upgrade their broadband network across the U.S. …show more content…
These cases were so prolific that they influenced the creation of government policy a decade later. In 2010, in the FCC created the Open Internet Order which comprised of a series regulations focused on creating a legal framework for ensuring net neutrality by classifying the internet as a telecommunications utility. Key tenants of the order included improved transparency from ISPs, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination. At the time, many watchdog groups hailed this order as a major victory for the principle of net neutrality. However, many telecom and other ISPs felt that the government had overstepped its bounds by regulating an ostensibly private network and challenged the FCC ruling. Subsequently, in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014), the U.S. Appellate court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to impose the order in its entirety, and threw out the no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination portions of the order. Since that ruling, the FCC has been exploring other options for ensuring the enforcement of net
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers and governments regulating internet traffic should treat all internet traffic equally, and not discriminate by website, user or platform (Wu, 2013). As usage of the internet has grown over the past decades, internet service providers (ISP) have proposed various forms of pricing schemes and policy proposals which would violate the principle of neutrality, specifically charging websites and internet users differentially based on their internet activity and traffic. Many watchdog groups and internet companies have protested any proposals that challenge the principle of net neutrality, arguing that a free and open internet, free of any industry regulation or manipulation, is absolutely essential to its overall purpose of the free exchange of knowledge and ideas (Cite). The debate surrounding net neutrality has taken place in the public arena for nearly a decade. In 2007, it was discovered that cable provider Comcast was intentionally throttling the internet speeds of users who used file-sharing networks to share documents and media with their friends and family (Svensson 2007). Upon further investigation, it appeared that Comcast took this action in order to keep file-sharing traffic from consuming up too much bandwidth and subsequently hampering the Internet speeds of other subscribers. While many understood that Comcast’s actions were a genuine attempt to improve the quality of its network, many were afraid of the precedent that it could set for the future. In 2010, Comcast was accused again of violating the principle of net neutrality, when the company threatened to block Netflix from its network unless it was willing to pay a fee to stream content over the Comcast network. Another well-known case regarding net neutrality took in place in 2006, when Verizon Communications accused Google of “freeloading” off of their network (Mohammed 2006). Between 2005 and 2010, Verizon undertook a major (and expensive) initiative to upgrade their broadband network across the U.S. …show more content…
These cases were so prolific that they influenced the creation of government policy a decade later. In 2010, in the FCC created the Open Internet Order which comprised of a series regulations focused on creating a legal framework for ensuring net neutrality by classifying the internet as a telecommunications utility. Key tenants of the order included improved transparency from ISPs, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination. At the time, many watchdog groups hailed this order as a major victory for the principle of net neutrality. However, many telecom and other ISPs felt that the government had overstepped its bounds by regulating an ostensibly private network and challenged the FCC ruling. Subsequently, in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014), the U.S. Appellate court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to impose the order in its entirety, and threw out the no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination portions of the order. Since that ruling, the FCC has been exploring other options for ensuring the enforcement of net