VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 10 POSTED ON: 6/12/2011
Robert Mahieu Sept. 25, 2009 English Pd. 8 Bibliography Bachula, Gary R. ―Internet2.‖ Congressional Digest Feb. 2007: n. pag. Pro & Con Online. Web. 17 Sept. 2009. <http://www.pro-and-con.org//article.asp?issue=211&article=internet2>. Pro & Con Online is an internet resource database established to provide an ―impartial view of controversial issues.‖ The site reports the opposing viewpoints of a debated topic, giving the details for either side through a collection of published articles. One of the database‘s primary focuses is Economic and Environmental Policy, covering debates such as Net Neutrality. This article, written by the Vice President of ―Internet2,‖ a not- for-profit partnership of 208 universities, 70 companies, and 51 affiliated organizations, expresses their hopes for an open internet in the future, allowing for innovation and growth the likes of which we have only imagined. Looking back upon the very beginnings of the internet, they make the observation that ―The World Wide Web, the web browser, the search engine, instant messaging, and many other technologies were innovations by users of the network. Not one of these innovations was developed by telephone or cable companies.‖ If the entrepreneurs and the little-guys of the past wave of internet growth were forced to pay the ―tolls that telephone companies today are imagining,‖ we may never have seen Amazon, eBay, or Google. In comparison to other nations around the world, who are ―adopting high-bandwidth, open, simple, low-cost designs for their networks, [the United States] is the only nation looking at making the network more, rather than less, complex and expensive.‖ This article provides essential information to support the future of the internet being free, or neutral, asking for the United States to realize all that the internet still has to offer, and not to restrict this opportunity. This article details the important possibilities as to how, exactly, we can make further ourselves through the internet, as long as it is kept free. Based upon the Internet2 Vice President‘s experience with new high-bandwidth connections and with students who have been working with this advanced technology for years, it is clear he is biased towards the pro side of the argument for net neutrality. Chester, Jeff. ―The End of the Internet?‖ The Nation. N.p., 1 Feb. 2006. Web. 25 Sept. 2009. <http://www.thenation.com///>. This paper is a report on the implementation of network neutrality policies and what we will be forced to experience if we do not accept them. Jeff Chester writes this article under the authority of ―The Nation,‖ which is an online news database providing so called ―unconventional wisdom‖ about current event news and analyses. The site focuses on politics and books and the arts. Net neutrality, under that topic of politics, is reported upon by Chester and is supported by looking at the discriminatory measures that would be put in place without the policies. He says that the big telecom corporations would work to charge fees, or ―tolls,‖ for virtually everything people do online. And in addition, ―those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment,‖ which would altogether begin to weed out the smaller businesses trying to get started. If we do not decide to take action against a future without neutrality, Chester makes it clear that ―the values and issues that we care about--civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair elections--will be further threatened by this push for corporate control.‖ Also, Chester brings up the worry of data inspection, using the process of ―deep packet inspection,‖ which allows telecom corporations such as AT&T or others to readily know and analyze any of the data you receiving online. This again raises the seriousness over the debate to keep our internet freedoms safe, including our privacy. This article raises a number of good points on what threats telecom companies are presenting upon the population and what limitations they could easily put in place—both being important for supporting the pro side for net neutrality by showing the frightening outcomes that are possible without it. The information of this article is presented in a way that makes telecommunication companies seem naturally evil and wrongdoing, giving a clear indication of bias from the author. For example, when Chester explains their plan to change the internet, he describes the outcome as a ―turbo-charged digital retail machine.‖ Dysart, Joe. ―The Quest for Net Neutrality.‖ American School Board Journal May 2008: 52-53. Web. 23 Sept. 2009. <http://search.ebscohost.com/.aspx?direct=true&db=aqh&AN=31534068&site=ehost- live>. This article was written by Joe Dysart for the American School Board Journal, a magazine published by the National School Boards Association dedicated to providing educational resources to school board members and administrators. The publication offers advice on a ―broad range of topics pertinent to school governance and management, policy making, student achievement, and the art of school leadership.‖ This article gives advice to educators as to what the outcome of the net neutrality debate could mean for school systems. For instance, the idea that telecom companies can decide to charge expensive rates for faster internet speeds, means that certain schools may not be able to afford it, causing browsing the school site or keeping data like attendance records, student transcripts, and other vital information, to become terribly troublesome, frustrating tasks. This also goes for the hopes for development of any school social networking sites, because, having the slower connection speed, they would lose visitors to ―top-tier‖ sites such as Facebook or MySpace. The article makes note that through the decision by the Department of Justice disagreeing with the Federal Communications Commission‘s (FCC) concept of net neutrality, ―reveals that extremely powerful special interest groups are currently in the process of helping decide just how fast your school‘s Web-based systems will run, just how fast your high school website will download, and just how popular your school‘s social network may or may not become.‖ This piece is interesting and important in the sense that it gives insight into diverse effects of net neutrality extending to the operation of school systems. Because of the importance stressed on education in the United States today, the argument that denying net neutrality will impair educators‘ abilities to teach to their full potential, should be a terrific argument in support of the neutrality act. Bias of this article includes the position of the author, Joe Dysart, being part of the American School Board Journal, under the National School Boards Association; this may sway him to sympathize with the educators throughout America. Eggerton, John. ―Obama Commits to Net Neutrality.‖ Multichannel News. Reed Business Information, 1 June 2009. Web. 17 Sept. 2009. <http://www.multichannel.com//- Obama_Commits_to_Net_Neutrality.php?q=obama+commits+to+net+neutrality>. Multichannel News is an online news database compiled partially from material print archives or television broadcasts but also from new web media coverage of news stories. As the media and publishing branch of the ―Reese Businesses,‖ they appear to seek to cover primarily business and technology related stories or events. This article entitled ―Obama Commits to Net Neutrality‖ reports plainly what the title denotes, that Obama has expressed his support to keep the internet‘s future free and open with opportunity for growth in innovations. But truly, the focus was put upon the growing need for cybersecurity and President Obama‘s initiative to introduce a new office to the White House led by a cybersecurity coordinator—who will also be a member of the national security staff, working together with the new chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra. Obama promised that the government ―will collaborate with industry to find technology solutions that ensure our security and promote prosperity,‖ not ―dictate security policy.‖ And importantly assuring that the new security methods put in place will not impede on new internet freedoms, Obama clearly states that the organizations‘ ―pursuit of cybersecurity will not — …will not — include monitoring private-sector networks or Internet traffic.‖ This report, coming from the President himself sets forth a view that will influence further organizations‘ actions in the future, giving lead to a stronger and more direct following for internet based freedoms. This assures that even with any implementations of the future, the United States government will work to fully secure personal privacy and civil liberties through the World Wide Web. As the news report is mainly a collection of quotations and summarization of Obama‘s ideas, there appears to be no bias from the news-writer‘s perspective; although the little bias there may be could come from Obama himself, obviously being a strong democrat. Federal Communications Commission. ―Internet History.‖ Congressional Digest Feb. 2007: n. pag. Pro & Con Online. Web. 22 Sept. 2009. <http://www.pro-and- con.org//.asp?issue=211&article=history>. Pro & Con Online is an internet resource database established to provide an ―impartial view of controversial issues.‖ The Congressional Digest reports details of the opposing viewpoints of a federally debated topic. A primary focus topic is Economic and Environmental Policy, covering debates such as Net Neutrality. This article, ―Internet History,‖ is a selected piece from ―The Internet: A Short History of Getting Connected,‖ which was a project compiled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Subtitled, ―From ARPANET to Broadband,‖ the piece gives light to the very beginning of the internet, the motives for its creation, the hopes for its development, and the long process for the multitude of connections to evolve and embellish into the basis for what we see today. ARPANET was the world‘s first means of computer networking, whereas nowadays it has evolved to connections all over the world sending countless data packets by the second. The internet‘s original thesis of becoming the envisioned, ―‘intergalactic‘ community that could emerge from a single computer time-sharing system,‖ has become much, much more. ―How ARPANET created the foundation upon which today‘s true ‗galactic‘ network, the Internet, is built is a story about using common standards and protocols to implement vision,‖ explains the FCC. This article provides important background information on the subject of the internet, the center focus of net neutrality arguments. This explains the opinions and ideas of the very founders of the internet we have today and thus can be used to compare to what we see today or want to see today. Bias may come from the authors of this piece because, being members of the FCC, they have a background with U.S. telecommunications including internet communication. Genachowski, Julius. ―Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity.‖ OpenInternet.gov. Federal Communication Commission, 21 Sept. 2009. Web. 22 Sept. 2009. <http://openinternet.gov/speech.html>. This speech, as given from the Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), is hosted on the ―beta‖ website OpenInternet.gov, a so-called ―connection‖ point to upcoming issues and the FCC‘s actions and ideas toward them. The main focus of the site is to be a place for open discussion about the future of the internet. This speech was presented yesterday to express the position the FCC will be taking on the subject of net neutrality. Chairman Julius Genachowski addresses the fact that the internet is a vital asset to the world as we know it today and this is possible because of the absolute original decision to make the internet an open system. He goes on to explain the problems that combined to form this current-day threat on the future of openness. Genachowski notes the dynamic network of the internet and the idea that technology will grow and evolve, ideally giving rise to a new ―vibrant marketplace of ideas.‖ He also lays down two new principles of net neutrality, strongly detailing it: ―non-discrimination…against particular Internet content or applications‖ and that ―providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.‖ This stance taken by such an involved individual, and his represented organization, supports the importance of keeping the internet ―neutral,‖ backing the pro side of the argument. He leads the American people to know what can and must be done to assure a successful, innovative future and most importantly, the ways in which it will work. It is to be noted that the Chairman of the FCC is reasonably biased by his background of experiences in the Communications Commission including his authority position over the communication technologies in the United States. Richman, Dina R. ―The Shot Heard Round the World Wide Web: Comcast Violates Net Neutrality.‖ Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal 20.3 (2008): 17-21. Advanced Placement Source. Web. 24 Sept. 2009. <http://search.ebscohost.com/.aspx?direct=true&db=aqh&AN=29974446&site=ehost- live>. Published in the Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, Dina R. Richman‘s article is backed by the journal‘s popularity and reputation as an informative and resourceful source ―providing important trends in patent, trade secret, trademark, and intellectual property law.‖ In this case, the article provides a strongly legal view into the debate over net neutrality. The paper is essentially a report about how Comcast had been ruled in violation of the net neutrality rules, reportedly interfering ―with [data] transfer by using technology that allows it to pose as another user‖ which ended up throttling BitTorrent Peer to Peer (P2P) traffic. It also describes relative legal bills or acts in which internet freedom and freedom from discrimination are supported through legal action, whether or not they were actually passed into law. The article continues on the discuss how network neutrality applies to the First Amendment, stating that ―The Internet has been lauded by many as a bastion of free speech,‖ marking it as a central point to uphold these constitutional rights to free speech. This is a strong effective source which can assist in arguing against the con side of the argument using the actions taken by Comcast and their unlawful behaviors. The same situation can be used to support the pro side as it can be used to put belief in the idea that net neutrality is the way to satisfy our constitutional right to free speech. Bias in the article clearly sways the author towards the pro side as can be seen by the description of Comcast‘s actions being compared to the actions starting a war, as if they chose to take a shot at net neutrality advocates on purpose. Taipale, K. A. Is Net Neutrality Bad for National Preparedness? N. pag. Center for Advanced Studies Research. Program on Telecommunications Policy, June 2006. Web. 25 Sept. 2009. <http://www.information-retrieval.info//neutrality/_Research_Brief_0614.pdf>. This research report was put together by the Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy, which is a private research and advisory organization seeking ―to inform and influence national and international policy…in particular by identifying and articulating issues that lie at the intersection of technologically enabled change and existing practice in public policy, law, and industry.‖ This article is a report of findings from a study done to see how policies of net neutrality would hold up against certain extreme circumstances in internet usages versus the telecom companies‘ proposed policies. The main point of the study came to be that besides all the freedoms of a neutral internet, ―there‘s a downside to enforced net neutrality – skewed incentives and no capability to prioritize critical services in times of national emergency.‖ Taipale refutes the pro argument that neutrality maintains fair business practices because net neutrality ―skews innovation towards bandwidth wasting applications…and is premised on unlimited capacity.‖ The point is also brought up that in times of crisis where everyone is online awaiting updates on a breaking news story, neutral internet servers would be completely overwhelmed by the incoming traffic, whereas prioritized systems would allow for a much larger ―surge‖ capacity. This source provides important information on the arguments against net neutrality, or rather the sore spots of the pro argument, leading to the idea that more research must be done on these certain topics to be able to successfully counter-argue them. It appears that bias can be obvious from the title of this report, which from the beginning asks the question ―is net neutrality bad…,‖ immediately creating an initial perspective point on the topic, rather than titling it ―how does net neutrality work with national preparedness?‖ Tanner, John C. ―VoIP Takes Net Neutrality Mobile.‖ Telecom Asia May 2009: 10. Web. 23 Sept. 2009. <http://search.ebscohost.com/.aspx?direct=true&db=aqh&AN=43402298&site=ehost- live>. John Tanner is an author for Telecom Asia, a magazine which covers news and updates about telecommunication-related material, including business activities, ―white papers,‖ developing analyses, case studies, and opinion articles and blogs. Tanner is Global Technology Editor for the Questex Asia, has two degrees in telecommunications, and has been covering the Asia-Pacific telecom industry for ten years. This therefore also brings up his bias, which includes his residence in Asia and his inclination to write by the policies of that nation, in addition to his authoritative position as Global Tech. Editor. This article provides a discussion of the condition of telecom industries as affected by the new market of iPhones, wireless fidelity connections, and mobile development of the voice over Internet protocol (VoIP). It explains that AT&T in the US allows Skype on its iPhones only under the circumstance that they design the app so that it only works on Wi- Fi connections, not the 3G network. Other nations such as Hong Kong‘s OFTA and Singapore‘s IDA consider VoIP to be nothing more than an internet application, leaving it out of their scope. ―That makes it a net neutrality issue, which is why neutrality advocates have asked the US FCC to determine if AT&T forcing Skype to cripple its app violates the net neutrality doctrine‖ (5). The issue encountered here provides insight into the future advancements of the net neutrality argument itself. It also provides a strong example of corporate restrictions over a ground-breaking technology, leaving the opportunities simply to collect dust due to the fear of radical change to business strategies and revenues. United States. Federal Communications Commission. Policy Statement. By Marlene H. Dortch. Federal Communications Commission. N.p., 23 Sept. 2005. Web. 24 Sept. 2009. <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public//-151A1.pdf>. This government publication is a piece presented to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the policies of the organization, written by Secretary Marlene H. Dortch. Established in 1934 by the Communications Act, the FCC is an independent U.S. government agency devoted to the management and regulation of communications through radio, television, wire, satellite and cable within the United States. This policy statement first mentions the importance of the internet and how it is utilized today and how it plays such a role in speedy communication, in educational resources, as a forum for political and cultural development, and in the economy of the United States ―as an engine for productivity growth and cost savings.‖ This publication discusses the (amended) Communications Act of 1934 and how it is the policy of the United States ―to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet‖ and ―to promote the continued development of the Internet.‖ Specifically towards the management of broadband networks, the FCC explains the principles it promises to adopt, all generally involving the main objective, ―to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet.‖ The FCC declares it to be their ―duty to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the Internet as the telecommunications marketplace enters the broadband age.‖ The paper presented here is legal documentation of the purpose, progress, and importance of a neutral internet, including the law of the United States that can be used to argue that it should remain neutral. This can add to a formal argument towards the actual legality of the policy of net neutrality. While this is a government publication, potential bias may come from the FCC‘s extensive background with the internet and how it is governed now, due to personal experience, swaying them towards the pro side of the neutrality argument.
Pages to are hidden for
"Works Cited"Please download to view full document