Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
In Favor of Net Neutrality Regulation

In Favor of Net Neutrality Regulation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 343|Likes:
Published by Publius
I strongly believe in basic human liberties; the right to life, liberty, and freedom of thought and expression are essential for all people in order to reach their full potential. As an advocate for these rights, I have come to understand how easily they can be encroached, and recognize the need for securing their protection against violations and abuse. I have also seen how hard people are willing to fight in regaining those liberties that have been attacked or weakened, their struggle emboldened by a spirit of brotherhood and the common good. Again, the world saw that spirit in the united uprisings of Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year. The repressed Egyptian citizens were able to exercise free speech and organize their mass movement by using the unfettered communication provided by the Internet (Hauslohner). The protests in the Middle East demonstrate how essential the Internet has become as a tool for free association and how valuable a resource it is for people across the earth. But just as the power of the public is enhanced with the growing reach of the Internet, so too is the power of private corporations that control the networks of reach. Net Neutrality is needed to prevent private interests and corporate conglomerates from monitoring or controlling everything said and done on the Internet. Net Neutrality rests on three essential principles: there is to be no discrimination against access to or the creation of lawful online content, all Internet users are entitled to equal access at an equal price, and consumers must be allowed to choose the equipment they can attach to the network (“Net Neutrality”).
I strongly believe in basic human liberties; the right to life, liberty, and freedom of thought and expression are essential for all people in order to reach their full potential. As an advocate for these rights, I have come to understand how easily they can be encroached, and recognize the need for securing their protection against violations and abuse. I have also seen how hard people are willing to fight in regaining those liberties that have been attacked or weakened, their struggle emboldened by a spirit of brotherhood and the common good. Again, the world saw that spirit in the united uprisings of Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year. The repressed Egyptian citizens were able to exercise free speech and organize their mass movement by using the unfettered communication provided by the Internet (Hauslohner). The protests in the Middle East demonstrate how essential the Internet has become as a tool for free association and how valuable a resource it is for people across the earth. But just as the power of the public is enhanced with the growing reach of the Internet, so too is the power of private corporations that control the networks of reach. Net Neutrality is needed to prevent private interests and corporate conglomerates from monitoring or controlling everything said and done on the Internet. Net Neutrality rests on three essential principles: there is to be no discrimination against access to or the creation of lawful online content, all Internet users are entitled to equal access at an equal price, and consumers must be allowed to choose the equipment they can attach to the network (“Net Neutrality”).

More info:

Published by: Publius on Apr 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/12/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Preston Edmands Paper 3 Persuasive ClassificationEnglish Comp 1301 April 12, 2011Section 075 Final Draft“In Favor of Net Neutrality Regulation”I strongly believe in basic human liberties; the right to life, liberty, and freedom of thought and expression are essential for all people in order to reach their full potential. Asan advocate for these rights, I have come to understand how easily they can beencroached, and recognize the need for securing their protection against violations andabuse. I have also seen how hard people are willing to fight in regaining those libertiesthat have been attacked or weakened, their struggle emboldened by a spirit of brotherhood and the common good. Again, the world saw that spirit in the uniteduprisings of Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year. The repressed Egyptian citizens wereable to exercise free speech and organize their mass movement by using the unfetteredcommunication provided by the Internet (Hauslohner). The protests in the Middle Eastdemonstrate how essential the Internet has become as a tool for free association and howvaluable a resource it is for people across the earth. But just as the power of the public isenhanced with the growing reach of the Internet, so too is the power of privatecorporations that control the networks of reach. Net Neutrality is needed to preventprivate interests and corporate conglomerates from monitoring or controlling everythingsaid and done on the Internet. Net Neutrality rests on three essential principles: there is tobe no discrimination against access to or the creation of lawful online content, all Internetusers are entitled to equal access at an equal price, and consumers must be allowed to
 
choose the equipment they can attach to the network (“Net Neutrality”).Net Neutrality ensures that Internet users have the right to access and create lawfulcontent of their choosing, free of discrimination or degradation by network providers. Inother words, Internet service providers (ISPs) cannot block or slow down lawful contentthey disagree with or simply dislike. This is important, considering the ever-expandingvariety of online opinion includes thought and discourse that is critical of corporationsand capitalism in general. In the physical world, the First Amendment protects argumentsagainst concentration of power and quasi-monopolies like Verizon and AT&T, but theAmerican Civil Liberties Union points out that there is no such explicit protection online(“Internet Freedom at Risk”). Because of this lack of protection, when a coalition of small businesses launched an email campaign protesting increased fees proposed byAmerica Online (AOL), the service provider quickly blocked the emails, without anyrepercussion for AOL or recourse for the small businesses (Bray). Another telecommunications company, TELUS, blocked public access to a web site thatsupported TELUS employees in a labor dispute (Outhit). A healthy, vibrant marketplaceof philosophical ideas cannot properly function under corporate censorship.Equal access at an equal price means that network providers cannot abuse their monopoly by barring access, providing slower access, or charging higher premiums topopular services competing with their own (“Internet Freedom at Risk”). Under NetNeutrality, network providers cannot give preferential treatment to their own services atthe expense of competing sites consumers wish to use. This is to prevent monopolies of emerging technologies and making victims of Internet users, like the customers caught inbetween in a recent case involving Madison River Communications (MRC) and Vonage,
In Favor of Net Neutrality RegulationPreston Edmands
2
 
an Internet telephone service (VoIP). In addition to Internet access, MRC offerstraditional telephone service that is in direct competition with Vonage; the accessprovider at the expense of nearly two hundred of its rural customers blocked the less-expensive VoIP service, according to the Washington Post (Krim). Though this mayseem slight, consider that for those customers who had disconnected their traditionalphone lines and were relying solely of Vonage, the blocking meant they had no ability tomake calls, even to emergency 911 services (Krim). The free market, and not tollboothsrun by a few corporate monopolies, must be allowed to decide Internet winners and losers(“Internet Freedom at Risk”).Opponents of Net Neutrality argue that the regulations are unnecessarily and wouldhinder innovation because its principles, such as ensuring consumers have an unlimitedchoice of equipment they can attach to the network, would cut into the potential profits of newly developed technologies and would therefore dissuade investment (Sharp).However, all Net Neutrality seeks to do is ensure that the ISPs that control the gatewaysallow compatibility for any equipment that doesn’t harm the network (“Net Neutrality”).If an ISP invests in research and development to develop a faster modem, they are stillentitled to protect their intellectual property from copyright violation, but they wouldn’tbe able to prevent modems developed by competing companies from accessing their network. This not only keeps the price of necessary equipment like routers and convertersdown, it also allows people to make lawful equipment of their own. Lawrence Lessigexplains that Net Neutrality would actually lead to greater innovation, just as theCommunications Act of 1934, which protected the consumer’s choice of lawfulequipment from monopoly by the telephone companies, eventually lead to the
In Favor of Net Neutrality RegulationPreston Edmands
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->