first kermit now neil patrick harris and elmo

baynton:

can you figure out the 8 different johnny depp roles?

“I like it”- Johnny Depp

his name was tiger

PEDO-teddy bear?!?!? NONONO!

Hey if your following this tumblr follow 9purple-fenix-tails. its my better page

Julien Banzon

Mary Lou

Univ 112

Net Neutrality and Net Privatization

Within the past 6 years, the topic of net neutrality has become a major issue in politics throughout the world. In the United States especially, it has taken a center spot in the media as one of the campaign promises made by the Obama administration. As the internet develops and grows larger every year, businesses have begun profiting through it and as the ability to profit goes up the question of how keeping internet service providers (ISPs) discrimination free has also grown. To solve this question of equality on the internet, the unwritten, undefined, industry standards of net neutrality was established in 2005 which served as a guide to how internet providers should operate. Then in December of 2010, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with the support of the Obama administration, took this a step further and turned these principles into legal regulation, but the reactions from the government, the industry, and the consumer has been mixed.

By trying to regulate net neutrality among ISPs the FCC first had to the jurisdiction of the providers from title I to title II which basically allows for more regulation and control. The net neutrality bill then outlines three main points that determine how the  title II ISPs, both wired and wireless operate their services, “to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected” (Genachowski, 2005). The first key point is transparency, meaning that ISPs must be clear to the consumer how it intends to manage and operate its network in clear and common language. This would essentially force them to notify and ensure that the consumer understands what is being paying for and provided on each network. The second point is that providers would not be able to block legal traffic to various services. This means that they could not stop customers on their network from viewing certain content as long as it did not specifically violate laws. This rule also shows a bit more attention towards the wired providers, as wireless ISPs are only prohibited from blocking traffic to services and applications that directly compete with the provider, such as the free internet communication service of Vonage. The third and final point is that ISPs show no discrimination towards one service over another. Simply put, this rule ensures competition on the internet as no one service is favored over another. Without this rule providers could theoretically allow certain services, such as search engines created by the ISP or companies like Google who are willing to pay a fee, to receive faster access by its users hence growing in its attractiveness to the consumer while the other services would be subject to slower internet access speed (Reardon, 2010). These rules intend to keep competition in the online market, promote innovation by the providers and create a stable and fair world market all while protecting the consumer, however, the World Wide Web is not yet sophisticated enough to need such legal regulations in place but, at this early on in its development, such regulations may actually be detrimental.

On the supportive end of the net neutrality argument, some believe that while these new regulations are not perfect, they are a necessary step that must be taken towards the end goal and without them it could take another 2-4 years before any progress is made. The more extreme view that supporters hold is that the new regulation is completely unsatisfactory as it only provides marginal protection of internet rights and instead of “incremental” gains, the FCC should just try to write all the “necessary” rights into law all at once and then deal with public reactions (Reardon, 2010). Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge, one of the groups leading the Net neutrality battle is one such supporter who holds that, “the FCC sided too heavily with big phone companies and cable operators in drafting the new rules,”  and, “that the new rules do not provide enough protection for consumers” (Reardon, 2010). Another point that supporters of net neutrality make is that, if ISPs were to create a faster access network for the most visited sites, there would be a need to monitor the activity of their users. The problem here is the violation of privacy, as many would be disturbed to know that everything they do online is being monitored.  

Opponents of net neutrality have taken the stance that net neutrality is not needed at this point because there is nothing wrong with the current system, which has enough regulation protecting the creators and the consumers. Most believe that to limit ISPs now would have negative effects on future generations of internet users. One of the more noted opponents of the bill, Republican Robert Mcdowell who serves in the FCC, felt that the new regulations are essentially a solution which creates its own problem. In his view, the FCC was able to pass the legislation because of the support it received from the Obama administration, along with use of the fear of old fashion, American monopoly models (2010). This causes panic in the political field even when in today’s societies there are regulations that prevent such situations from occurring. He also went on to state that, “[t]he most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths,” (2010) and that the net neutrality act was the FCC’s way of circumventing previous legislation that limited its powers creating doubt among the voters as to whether or not letting the FCC have that kind of authority would not lead to more controlling legislation.  

One of the main factors which prevents net neutrality from becoming absolute law is the question of whether or not the FCC has the legal authority to create such regulations; allowing it to have that authority would also be giving it power to regulate interstate commerce (Bollman, 2010). In April of 2010, the ISP Comcast filed a lawsuit against the FCC when it blocked access to a content sharing service. The case resulted in a loss for the FCC, which many believe to indicate that the court system does not believe that the FCC should have the authority to create legislation as powerful as net neutrality, as well as leaving the FCC unable to enforce its new regulations. However, “while the court decision invalidated its current approach to that goal, the agency said, ‘the court in no way disagreed with the importance of providing a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end’” (Wyatt, 2010). Then in early 2011, the wired and wireless ISP Verizon filed another suit against the FCC when it teamed with Google to create a joint legal framework which would look similar to the model of ISPs creating a faster access internet for themselves and companies willing to pay (Bollman, 2010). This time the charge was against the net neutrality act itself. The case, however, ended in the court of appeals siding with the FCC demonstrating how there are some within the court systems who agree with the principles behind the regulations; the problem lies in the FCC’s authority to enforce those regulations. Aside from these court decisions, another legal obstacle standing in the way of net neutrality regulations in the U.S. is the Republican Party in general. Most Republicans, like Mcdowell, believe that the rules are unnecessary and to give the FCC that kind of authority would be wrong as they see it to be a grab for power by the Democrats. In a public statement, Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs for AT&T, stated that, “Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate the Internet under Title II. Simply because it desires to do so, or is concerned because a court has questioned its authority to do so, does not by itself confer legal authority” (Reardon, 2010). With the political balance of power in question, many Republicans who would support net neutrality’s purpose are hesitant to vote for it as it would validate power for the Democrats. On April 8^th, 2011 the Republican dominant House of Representatives passed H. J. Res. 37; a bill, which if passed by the(Democratic) Senate, would repeal the net neutrality regulations.

Finally one of the most important factors that must be considered is the debate between the effect that net neutrality would have on the economy versus the consumer and his belief that he should have the right to use the internet as he sees fit. This topic is especially important on the world stage as many European Parliaments are awaiting the results of net neutrality in the United States to decide whether or not it is viable legislation for their own countries (Bollman, 2011). In studies done on the topic, Dr. Weisman, an economics professor at the University of Kansas with a Ph. D from the University of Florida, believes that the new net neutrality policies would have a negative effect on the economy through price discrimination. Price discrimination, which is the concept of how various service providers charge different prices for the same service,

 “is a common feature in competitive markets, and economists have demonstrated that it often increases economic efficiency.  Although price discrimination reduces static efficiency under some circumstances, it is particularly likely to increase static efficiency in the market for broadband services because the market is two-sided and is becoming increasingly competitive.  Furthermore, because price discrimination encourages innovation in the provision of broadband services, price discrimination by ISPs promotes dynamic efficiency” (Weisman, 2010).

Those who believe in the consumer’s right to an untouched internet experience believe the opposite, in that the regulation of internet providers would instead lead to an increase in innovation and investing as competition would be created by providers trying to out-perform other providers. “You can’t have innovation if all the big companies get the fast lane,” said Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, which advocates for consumer rights on digital issues. “Look at Google, eBay, Yahoo — none of those companies would have survived if 15 years ago we had a fast lane and a slow lane on the Internet” (Wyatt, 2010). They also believe that, regardless of other factors, that their ability to create and share content with the world should not be touched; as the world grows into a stronger community, limiting access to the internet is the same as limiting their voice in this new world community of human well-being (Jackson, 2010). One of the most compelling arguments here is that of Popular attorney from the Drake University Law Review, Christopher R. Steffe, who reminds voters that, ”[w]ith a few clicks of a mouse, an Internet user can join hundreds of thousands of people in donating their computers’ unused processing power to assist researchers in studying and developing cures for illnesses such as Alzheimer’s and cancer. In that same sitting, this individual can work from home, accessing the same information and materials that formerly would have been available only at work, then order a pizza” (Drake Law Review 58, 2010). This sharing of knowledge is something that many citizens work to preserve and most people cling to these kinds of ideals as the thought of losing this right, or any right in general, is unappealing to the masses. Along with the desire to keep their rights of expression in this new developing world community, the consumer’s argument also understands that if the internet becomes susceptible to any form of content control, it could lead to the control of content for political, commercial, or even religious reasons (Bollman, 2010). This could eventually lead to a situation similar to that of the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church set out to destroy the knowledge gained by the Enlightenment and civilizations were set back in their knowledge. 

While there are still many factors to consider, and a long way to go for the legislation itself, net neutrality looks to be a positive set of regulations for the consumer and a potentially necessary law. However, it is too early in the development of both the law, and the internet to predict whether or not the world has the need for it at this point. To answer this problem, the best solution at this point would be to have net neutrality laws develop slowly over the next few years, alongside the internet, and if it is deemed that the limits are detrimental, they will be more easily undone than if a completed set of regulations is made into law all at one time.

Works Cited

Bollman, Melissa. “Net Neutrality, Google, and Internet Ethics.” Humanist 70.6 (2010): 6-7. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 6 May 2011.

Crocioni, Pietro. “Net Neutrality in Europe: Desperately seeking a market failure.” Telecommunications Policy 35.1 (2011): 1-11. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.

Jackson, Charles L. “Wireless Efficiency Versus Net Neutrality.” Federal Communications Law Journal 63.2 (2011): 445-480. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.

Mcdowell, Robert M. “Robert M. McDowell: The FCC’s Threat to Internet Freedom - WSJ.com.”Business News & Financial News. The Wall Street Journal, 20 Dec. 2010. Web. 8 Apr. 2011.

“NO FAKE NET NEUTRALITY.” Nation 291.26 (2010): 5. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.

Reardon, Marguerite. “FAQ: The FCC’s Plan to Reclassify Broadband.” Cnet News. CNET News, 6 May 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20004392-266.html>.

Reardon, Marguerite. “FCC Makes Net Neutrality Rules Official | Signal Strength

CNET News.”Technology News. CNET News, 21 Dec. 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026283-266.html>.

United States. Federal Communications Commission. Chairman. By Julius Genachowski. 23 Sept. 2005. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.

Weisman, Dennis L., and Robert B. Kulick. “Price Discrimination, Two-Sided Markets, and Net Neutrality Regulation.” Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property 13.(2010): 81-102. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web 26 Apr. 2011.

“WHY WE NEED NET NEUTRALITY LEGISLATION NOW OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND TRUST THE FCC.” Drake Law Review 58.4 (2010): 1149-1184. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.

Wyatt, Edward. “U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic.” Technology. The New York Times, 6 Apr. 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2011.

Kim, Minjeong, Chung Joo Chung, and Jang Hyun Kim. “Who shapes network neutrality policy debate? An examination of information subsidizers in the mainstream media and at Congressional and FCC hearings.” Telecommunications Policy 35.4 (2011): 314-324. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.

Julien Banzon

Mary Lou

Univ 112

Net Neutrality and Net Privatization

Within the past 3 years, the topic of net neutrality has become a major issue in politics, especially in the United States. As the internet develops and grows faster every year, businesses have begun profiting through it and as the ability to profit goes up the question of how keeping internet providers discrimination free has also grown. To solve this question of equality on the internet, the unwritten, undefined, industry standards of net neutrality was established which served as a guide to how internet providers should operate. Then in December of 2010, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took this a step further and turned these principles into legal regulation, and the reactions from the government, the industry, and the consumer has been mixed. While net neutrality is a necessary form of protection for the consumer and the internet content creator, the World Wide Web is not yet sophisticated enough to need such regulations in place and, at this early on in its development, such regulations may actually be detrimental in some instances.

The legislation created by the FCC chairman outlines three main points that determine how internet providers, both wired and wireless, operate. The first key point that is highlighted by the regulation is transparency; meaning that providers must be clear to the consumer how it intends to manage and operate its network in clear and common language. This would essentially force the providers to notify and ensure that the consumer understands what they are paying for and what they are being provided with on each network. The second point is that providers are not able to block legal traffic to various services. This means that they cannot stop customers on their network from viewing certain content. This rule also shows a bit more attention towards the wired providers as wireless providers are only prohibited from blocking traffic to services and applications that directly compete with the provider, such as the free internet communication service of Skype. The third and final point is that providers show no discrimination towards one service over another. Simply put, this rule ensures competition on the internet as no one service is favored over another. Without this rule providers could theoretically allow certain services, such as search engines created by the provider or companies like Google who’re willing to pay, to receive faster access by its users hence growing while the other services would be subject to slower internet access speed. (Reardon, 2010)

These rules supposedly will keep competition in the online market, promote innovation by the providers and create a stable and fair world market. On the supportive end of the argument, some believe that while these new regulations are not perfect, they are a necessary step that must be taken towards the end goal and without them it could take another 2-4 years before anything is done. The more extreme view that supporters hold is that the new regulation is completely unsatisfactory as it only provides marginal protection of internet rights and instead of “incremental” gains, the FCC should just try to write all the “necessary” rights into law all at once and deal with public reactions.(Reardon, 2010)  Opponents of net neutrality, on the other hand, take the stance that net neutrality is not needed at this point because there is nothing wrong with the current system, which has enough regulation protecting the creators and the consumers, and to limit it now would have the opposite effect than what’s intended on future generations of internet users. One of the more noted opponents of the act, Republican Robert Mcdowell who serves in the FCC, felt that the new regulations were greatly unnecessary and that it is essentially a solution which creates its own problem. In his view, the FCC was able to pass the legislation because it was using the fear of the old fashion, American monopoly models to cause panic in the political field, when in today’s societies there are regulations that prevent such situations from occurring. (Mcdowell, 2010)He also went on to site that the net neutrality act was the FCC’s way of circumventing previous legislation that limited its powers creating doubt among the voters as to whether or not letting the FCC have that kind of authority would not lead to more controlling legislation.

One of the main factors which prevents net neutrality from become absolute law is the question of whether or not the FCC has the authority to create such regulations. In April of 2010, the internet provider Comcast, filed a lawsuit against the FCC when it blocked access to a content sharing service. The case resulted in a loss for the FCC, which many believe to indicate that the court system does not believe that the FCC should have the authority to create legislation as powerful as net neutrality, as well as leaving the FCC unable to enforce its new regulations. Then in early 2011, the wired and wireless service provider Verizon, filed another suit against the FCC. This time the charge was against the net neutrality act itself. This case, however, ended in the court of appeals siding with the FCC demonstrating how there are some within the court systems who do feel that the act is not the problem, only the FCC’s method of enforcing it.

 Finally one of the most important factors that must be considered is the debate between the effect that net neutrality would have on the economy versus the consumer and his belief that he should have the right to use the internet as he sees fit. In studies done on the topic, economic analysis’ actually stated that, opposite of the FCC’s intentions and popular beliefs, net neutrality may actually have a negative effect on the economy as innovation and investing may decline as limits are put on how much they can profit from those innovating the service and investing to expand the corporation. (Mcdowell, 2010) Those who believe in the consumer’s right to an untouched internet experience believe the opposite, in that the regulation of internet providers would instead lead to an increase in innovation and investing as competition would be created by providers trying to out-perform other providers. They also believe that, regardless of other factors, that their ability to create and share content with the world should not be touched; as the world grows into a stronger community, limiting access to the internet is the same as limiting their voice in this new world community of human well-being.

While there are still many factors to consider, and a long way to go for the legislation itself, net neutrality looks to be a positive set of regulations for the consumer and a potentially necessary law. However, it is too early in the development of both the law, and the internet to predict whether or not the world has the need for it at this point. To answer this problem, the best solution at this point would be to have net neutrality laws develop slowly over the next few years, alongside the internet, and if it is deemed that the limits are detrimental, they will be more easily undone than if a completed set of regulations is made into law all at one time.

Julien Banzon

Mary Lou

Univ 112

Net Neutrality and Net Privatization

Within the past 3 years, the topic of net neutrality has become a major issue in politics, especially in the United States. As the internet develops and grows faster every year, businesses have begun profiting through it and as the ability to profit goes up the question of how to keep internet providers discrimination free toward all it has to offer has also grown. To solve this question of equality on the internet, the unwritten, undefined, industry standards of net neutrality was established which served as a guide to how internet providers should operate. In December of 2010, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took this a step further and turned these principles into legal regulation, and the reactions from the government, the industry, and the consumer has been mixed. While net neutrality is a necessary form of protection for the consumer and the internet content creator, the World Wide Web is not yet sophisticated enough to need such regulations in place and, at this early on in its development, such regulations may actually be detrimental in some instances.

The legislation created by the FCC chairman outlines three main points that determine how internet providers, both wired and wireless, operate. The first key point that is highlighted by the regulation is transparency; meaning that providers must be clear to the consumer how it intends to manage and operate its network in clear and common language. This would essentially force the providers to notify and ensure that the consumer understands what they are paying for and what they are being provided with on each network. The second point is that providers are not able to block legal traffic to various services. This means that they cannot stop customers on their network from viewing certain content. This rule also shows a bit more attention towards the wired providers as wireless providers are only prohibited from blocking traffic to services and applications that directly compete with the provider. The third and final point is that providers show no discrimination towards one service over another. Simply put, this rule ensures competition on the internet as no one service is favored over another. Without this rule providers could theoretically allow certain services, such as search engines created by the provider or companies like Google who’re willing to pay, to receive faster access to them by its users hence growing while the other services would be subject to slower internet access speed. These rules supposedly will keep competition in the online market, promote innovation by the providers and create a stable and fair world market. However, there are many that disagree with this plan. Some believe that while these new regulations are not perfect, they are a necessary step that must be taken towards the end goal and without them it could take another 2-4 years before anything is done. Opponents of net neutrality, on the other hand, take the stance that net neutrality is not needed at this point because there is nothing wrong with the current system, which has enough regulation protecting the creators and the consumers,  and to limit it now would have the opposite effect than what’s intended.

Net Neutrality Vs Net Privatization:

• Legislation: Discrimination, Transparency, Blocking of Traffic
• Internet as a human right
• Lack of authority in FCC
• Effect on economies
• Innovation
• Republican Vs Democrat Views

Objects in bold are the areas of discussion for the upcoming synthesis paper

Legislation: This will most likely take up a large part of the paper as it explains the main concept of net neutrality in this situation as well as revealing who the stakeholders are. This topic is also very easy to write on as it contains 3 subpoints which must be explained to understand the topic

Lack of Authority: This topic was documented in almost every paper on the recent subject. Whether or not the FCC has the ability to create such legislation has lead to at least two legal battles and understanding those legal battles will better help understand if net neutrality is actually a possiblity

Effect on Economies: possibly one of the most important issues which continually arises is what affect will net neutrality have on the economy. While some say that net neutrality will lead to a fair economic market with greater innovation opponents say that it will lead to high prices from internet providers, a loss of jobs, and a less innovative future generation of internet

Source:

Mcdowell, Robert M. “Robert M. McDowell: The FCC’s Threat to Internet Freedom - WSJ.com.”Business News & Financial News. The Wall Street Journal, 20 Dec. 2010. Web. 8 Apr. 2011. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html>.

Summary:

This article, taken from the opinion section of The Wall Street Journal’s website, documents the anti-net neutrality views of Republican Robert Mcdowell who is currently in the Federal Communications Commission. Mcdowell feels that the new net neutrality legislation that the FCC would be passing would be a means of circumventing previous court decisions and Congress and give it authority that it did not have. He states that nothing is needed to regulate the internet as it is self regulating and that although net neutrality may seem  like a good idea to stoop monopolies over the internet, it may actually have an adverse effect causing increased service rates and the loss of jobs as well as many other unfavorable side effects on the world market stage. In the article he also mentions how the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission deems net neutrality as unnecessary.

After highlighting the fact that net neutrality would have negative effects on the economy, Mcdowell goes on to show that the legislation had been held back for months because of various experts and government officials finding problems with the authority of the FCC as well as the stakeholders on both ends coming together to reach agreements themselves. He describes the FCC using the fear of “old fashioned monopolies” to scare the industry into following these new regulations. He ends his article by again stating how he feels that the FCC is trying to fix something that isn’t broken.

Relevance:

This article is relevant in that it is a direct view of an expert who is in close relation to the issue at hand. It documents his negative feelings towards the legislation and shows reasonable argument against net neutrality along with providing government and “expert opinion”

Quotes:

“Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being “data driven” in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.”