Site Loader

Net Neutrality

Evariste Some

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now



What are the top
reasons for net neutrality regulation? Why regulate net neutrality? What are
the problems classifying “Broadband Internet Access Service” (BIAS) as a “telecommunication
service”? Because there are enough problems, Commission wants to classify BIAS
as “information service”. Therefore, what is the definition of information
service, and how it maps to BIAS? Those are the questions we will attempt to
provide a reasonable point of view.

The top reasons of
net neutrality regulation are to first, eliminate the burdensome regulation that hamper “innovation
and investment of Broadband Internet Access Service”, offer a chance “to free
and open Internet”, and to allow consumers to choose the BIAS that fits their
needs (FCC, 2018, p. 2). Second,
in 2015 Title II Order, “the Commission abandoned twenty years of precedent and
reclassified BIAS as telecommunication service subject to several regulatory
obligations under Title II of the Communication Act of 1934. Such approach has
been reverse and the BIAS has been restored to its Title I information service
classification. The regulation has ended utility style regulation of the
Internet in favor of the market based policies to preserve the future of
internet freedom. The private mobile service classification of mobile BIAS, and
the Commission’s definition of interconnected service that existed prior 2015 have
been reinstated. Such modification will promote investment and innovation
better than applying costly and restrictive laws” (FCC, 2018, p. 2). Third, “net neutrality
regulation” required a transparency with ISP actors. That helps consumers to
choose what work best for them. It belongs to consumers to decide what BIAS
meets their needs. Regulation went back to the transparency rule the “Commission
adopted in 2014 with limited modifications” (FCC, 2018, p. 3). Fourth, the Commission’s
conduct rules have been eliminated. These rules cost to innovation and
investment, which outweigh any benefits that is generated. No sources of legal
authority have proven the conduct rules governing Internet Service Providers
adopted in the Title II order (FCC, 2018, p. 2). Additionally, transparency
requirement ensures that consumer have means to take legal action if an ISP
engages in behavior inconsistent with an open internet. Overall, the mean of
all these actions is to promote broadband deployment in America, mostly in
uncovered rural area, and infrastructure investment throughout the nation. Such
perspectives will enhance the future of innovation of networks and edges.

The intended
actions of regulation are to “promote competition and reduce regulation, to
flourish computer services to the benefit of all Americans”, to “promote the
continuous development of the internet and other interactive computer services
and other interactive media and to preserve the vibrant and competitive free
market that presently exists for the internet and other interactive computer
services unfettered by Federal or State regulation” (Pai, Carr, 2017). Because
online traffic is exploding, and “we consume exponentially more data over time,
innovators and entrepreneurs must grow startups into global giants, and
therefore make America’s Internet economy the envy of the world” (Pai, Carr,
2017). With technology growth, consumers are imposing increasing demands on the
network. Networks must be re-scaled to satisfy consumers demand soon or later.

A strong
understanding of technology role is important. “Broadband Internet Service
Access” is defined to be an “information service” under the Act. Section 3 of
the Act defines an “information service” as “the offering of a capability for
generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing
or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic
publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the
management, control, or operation of a telecommunication system or the
management of a telecommunications service”. Still, section 3 defines a
“telecommunications service as the offering of telecommunications for a fee
directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively
available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.” Likewise,
BIAS provide information processing functionalities itself, such as DNS and
caching, which satisfy the capabilities set forth in the information service
definition.” It has been proven that the BIAS as it is offered today, leads to
the conclusion that it is an “information service” (FCC, 2018, p. 10).

To solve the statutory ambiguity, it
is proven that “information service” encompasses BIAS. Because BIAS has “the
capacity or potential ability to be used, to engage in the activities within
the information service”, we conclude that it is best to have those
“capabilities.” (FCC, 2018, p. 13). BIAS is an “information service
irrespective of whether it provides the entirety of any end user functionality
or whether it provides end user functionality in tandem with edge providers” (FCC,
2018, p. 13).

Net neutrality in
its Tittle II had many ambiguities regarding information and telecommunication
services. Many of us ignore or can not interpret the content of the
Communication Act. Therefore, it is not surprising to record resentments regarding
net neutrality regulation. Repealing Title II and reversing BIAS as an
information service will bring faster, better, and cheaper Internet access to
all Americans. Time is arrived to return to the bipartisan regulatory framework
under which the Internet flourished prior to 2015.


FCC Federal Communications Commission
17-166. (January 4, 2018). “Restoring            InternetFreedom.”

Pai, Carr. (December 14, 2017). “Statements for Repealing Net Neutrality.”
Retrieve from         statements-net-neutrality-repeal

Post Author: admin


I'm Erica!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out