Synopsis of Why You Should Care About Net Neutrality

Right now if you go onto the Internet you are basically able to look at any webpage without any extra costs or exceptions. Internet subscribers sign up for service expecting they will get access to the entire Internet. Would it be foolish for a broadband provider to deliver anything else? The Internet is free and accessible for anyone to start up his or her own pages and applications. Currently you could create any webpage you want without interference. The pages online that become popular do so because Internet users find the services provided by the pages to be important.
Overall there is really no central control over the Internet. Although, this could change now since the Internet has switched from being run by dial-up to broadband companies. When the Internet used to be run by dial up it ran across telephone wires and benefited from rules that the phone companies had to deliver all Internet traffic without discrimination. These broadband carriers do not need to follow these non-discrimination rules.
Due to the fact that broadband carriers do not need to follow rules regarding non-discrimination this might create a problem. For example, if a new application is working poorly or slowly, is it because the new application is just not that good or is it the broadband provider interfering with its delivery? Consumers can’t really tell what’s going on, and the market can’t provide an effective check. Also, consumers don’t have a large number of broadband providers from which to choose. Does the Internet’s openness as we know it rest on thin ice so that there could someday be an access charge to Facebook and Twitter?


How to get this article?
Step 1: Go to abcnews.com
Step 2: In the search box type “Why you should care about net neutrality”
Step 3: Click on article.

Why you should care

Synopsis of The Last Mile: Service Tiers Versus Infrastructure Development and the Debate on Internet Neutrality

The idea of net neutrality has some basis in the idea that in order to have the internet, one needs two components. One is a line, and the other is an internet provider. This article talks about telephone companies and how they relate to the idea of infrastructure. Last mile has to do with the telephone and cable. The advent of broadband technology broad a change in the way the internet was thought about. Internet providers now want to discriminate between Internet applications and charge service providers (Google being an example). With the rise of net-neutrality, it would become illegal to discriminate between internet applications.

Gone would be the days of an open access policy. This applied to the telephone companies, but with the rise of this legislation, broadband companies might not have this open access policy. There is a section in the article discussing SBC users. They want to use the internet pipes of a user for free, event though the user has to pay for it, a lot of SBC users are not liking this too much. This article talks about service tiers, which talk about different forms of payment/ revenue to keep costs low. I believe Time Warner cable’s service might be an example of a tier. As of right now, according to the article, neutrality is not that widespread, but if legislation passes it will have to become widespread. The article discusses the new internet, which would apply anti-discrimination on internet applications. This would be a more fair use of internet services.

Should internet providers discriminate against internet applications, or should the neutrality law be set into motion?

The Last Mile

Go to UW Oshkosh home,
Click on Polk Library
Click on Academic Search Elite
Type in Internet Neutrality

Synopsis of Couldn't Care Net

It will first be important to note that three major websites are pushing for net neutrality. Those are MSN, eBay and Google. Now with that I will talk about the article. The article in general discusses the issue of net neutrality in terms of it being a federal issue, with the presidential candidates all having some sort of view on it. The article itself seems to lean toward net neutrality. The article discusses a website called “SavetheInternet,” which is a website geared towards net neutrality and its importance. Net neutrality according to this article is that it is equal time given to all facets of the internet, without discriminating, or showing partiality to any one website, etc. This also has to do with the idea of interfering within the scope of the network, deciding who can connect and who cannot. Those advocating want to see legislation that would forbid any interference.

In the article there is a debate. One is in favor of net neutrality (Tim Berners-Lee), and the other is against it (John Chambers). Tim Berners-Lee believes that because we pay for the internet, there should not be any discrimination over who can connect to the web and who cannot.

The price tag should be attached to the web, not to us. (Perhaps cite quote in blog?). He believes that a neutral web is important to our society today (Paraphrase). The other view by John Chambers suggests that with the continual advancement and growth of the internet, it is important to give quality services to people over the www. There needs to be regulation, especially when problems occur. He believes that net neutrality would only compound the problem.

Would you be for or against legislation that would place a net neutrality system over the www?

Couldn't Care Net

Go to UW Oshkosh home,

Click on Polk Library

Click on Academic Search Elite

Type in Internet Neutrality