Topic:
Discuss the concept of Net Neutrality, its role in the market, and provide your opinion on the subject
Discussion Questions: 1. What is Net Neutrality? 2. What role does Net Neutrality play in the current business market? 3. What is your opinion on the subject?
Please cite all sources
The current structure of the internet can be described as "open" because it allows both consumers and businesses to communicate; as well as create, share, and access content without restriction or boundaries. The concept behind the The "Open Internet" structure is Net Neutrality, defined by the Oxford Dictionaries as "the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."
Currently, net neutrality plays a substantial role in the competitive landscape of our current business markets. The current "open" structure of the internet allows for better communication, creativity, innovation, and access to markets as well as products for both organizations and consumers . Net neutrality has somewhat leveled the "playing field", and made it possible for smaller organizations to compete in the same markets as established organizations that have access to larger amounts of capital. Recently, President Obama released a statement calling net neutrality "essential to the American economy" due its ability to "lower the cost of launching a new idea, ignite new political movements, and bring communities closer together."
In my opinion net neutrality isn't a good long term solution. While I do believe there should be a basic level of internet service provided at no charge (similar to our current situation), I also believe that a company, such as Comcast or Charter, should have the ability to make a profit from their investment (internet infastructure). In my opinion, companies who use an enormous amount of bandwidth (think Netflix and YouTube) as a means to distribute their product/service should be charged more by ISP's. I believe that without the ability to make a profit, investment in internet infastrucutre will subside, and the general public will suffer the consequences (higher cost, lower quality service).
Sources:
Net neutrality. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2014, from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/net-neutrality.
Net Neutrality: President Obama's Plan for a Free and Open Internet. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2014, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality.
Netflix and YouTube Now Consume 50% Of The Internet As The Argument For Net Neutrality Weakens. (2014, November 24). Retrieved November 26, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/11/24/netflix-and-youtube-now-consume-50-of-the-internet-as-the-argument-for-net-neutrality-weakens/.

The "open" market in regards to the Internet allows even the smallest of businesses to be able to open a website and provide a service. The openness of the market allows for both competition between markets and also allows for buyers to have more options. There is little to no restrictions on the websites one can access in the U.S., but if net neutrality is threatened this could change swiftly.
The ongoing battle around net neutrality is a difficult one; slow lanes and fast lanes for different levels of traffic on websites seems like a good idea, but this divide could bring major problems. Not only will a consumer have to pay more for the service if they would like to access a fast lane website, but this divide could also cripple small businesses in the process. Even with the small regulations on the Internet now, "open-Internet groups point out that the market is already dominated by a handful of cable and phone companies. According to Wheeler, 80% of Americans with access to high-speed broadband have only one choice of ISP" (Sweetland 2014). There are already big companies dominating some options in regards to the Internet, the amount of providers could become even smaller if net neutrality is taken away. Removing net neutrality means less players in the market which in turn means less options for consumers.
As more and more support grows in favor of net neutrality, it is important to remember why: equality of the market for all. "The movement is pushing for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to maintain the Internet more like a public utility, where content from big guys such as YouTube and Facebook would be treated the same as that from, say, a small restaurant or a television station in Duluth" (Sherry 2014). It is already a struggle to open a small business with limited funds, but without net neutrality, these small business owners will only have more barriers to deal with as they try to become profitable.

References:
Sweetland Edwards, H. (2014). Whose Internet Is It?. Time, 184(20), 14-16.
Sherry, A. (2014, November 24). Net neutrality advocates feeling momentum. Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN).

Reclassification of Broadband
I would like to talk about the origins of the net neutrality issue to explain my point of view based on an article I found by Justin Fox in the Harvard Business Review. When the internet started as a dial-up service in the 1990’s phone companies were regulated as telecommunications services and charged internet service providers (ISP)the use of their infrastructure (telephone lines). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at that time labeled ISPs as information services that did not require being regulated and do whatever they wanted. Eventually phone companies began offering DSL connections followed by cable company’s faster broadband connections, each of which were ruled by the FCC as information services. With the introduction of broadband in 2002 it became clear to the FCC that competition was beginning to take its form in the information services realm and would rely on this situation to foster investment in future infrastructure and protect consumers.
Very quickly the FCC found out that broadband providers had the power to block content they did not agree with. With the first case, the FCC ordered a North Carolina company, Madison River Communications, to stop its blockage of voice-over-internet calls. The second case occurred when Comcast blocked peer to peer file sharing services and the FCC ordered Comcast to stop its blockage as well. Comcast appealed and won the ruling stating that the FCC did not have the authority to order Comcast, an information service, to stop its blockage of content. For the FCC to have greater authority over information services, the FCC decided it would revise its open internet rules. However, the FCC was sued by Verizon claiming the FCC had overstepped its boundaries. Due to the constant push back from broadband providers operating under the guise as information service providers and the FCC having limited authority over information service providers, the FCC has decided to reclassify the broadband service providers as telecommunications services. The reclassification would make the FCC’s authority much clearer over the services provided. According to the article the reclassification would not have been required had the information service providers, such as the broadband providers not sued the FCC over its decision to maintain an “open internet”, an internet that did not choose its own winners and losers. The reclassification would essentially be the last thing broadband and DSL providers want to see happen.
The reclassification of information service providers, such as broadband and DSL providers, to telecommunications services would eventually require utility commissions be responsible to oversee the monopoly, telecommunications services have on the markets they have invested in, to install their infrastructure. I currently work for a private water utility company that requires permission from the California Public Utilities Commission for the profits it needs or can justify. I don’t say that is a good thing but the purpose of the commission is to ensure we, as a utility, do not take advantage of the rate payers stuck, within our service area. I feel the internet will be regulated by somebody, whether the FCC or other government entity to ensure it stays “open” for who knows how long, or the providers that want to pick their winners and losers.
Reference
Fox, J. (2014, November 18). No One Actually Knows How to Regulate the Internet. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from https://hbr.org/2014/11/no-one-actually-knows-how-to-regulate-the-internet

Net neutrality, in short, some internet service providers want to fundamentally alter the way the internet works and collect money from companies like Netflix and Facebook to guarantee their data can continue to reach users unimpeded.
The core of net neutrality is to seek to guarantee that ISPs (like time warner) do not advantage one content provider (such as Google) over another (such as Yahoo). While instead of looking to the broadly accepted and proven non-discrimination opinion in other spheres of communications (like cable programming), the FCC has crafted a new concept of non-discrimination. Non-discrimination defined by FCC’s net neutrality means that ISPs cannot provide enhanced services beyond the plain-vanilla access service to content providers at any price. For instance, if Sony wants to purchase peculiar handling or the package for its online gaming portal, it has to look beyond ISPs for a supplier. So long as ISPs are prohibited charging for that service, then they maybe refrain from providing it. The business community should regard this kind of rule as a form of price regulation.
However, businesses need the opportunity to innovate. Therefore the ability to obtain priority delivery from ISPs would encourage innovation among large and small businesses. Priority delivery would cultivate certain real-time apps to operate free of jitter and normally perform at higher levels. Without net neutrality limitations, the businessmen in their company would devote important energies trying to push down Google with the next killer application. But these creative energies will flow elsewhere if the real-time applications are not allowed to run as they were designed.
Thus if net neutrality regulation is bad for businesses, what should FCC be doing to encourage investment by both ISPs and content providers? To continue upgrading their broadband networks, ISPs need assurance that their investments will not be appropriated by the government. Accordingly, the FCC needs to change its method on many proceedings that seek to limit the returns to broadband investment in the name of “leveling the playing field.”
Sources:
1.Dylan Love. (June 27, 2014). Net Neutrality Explained in 60 Seconds. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-explained-in-60-seconds-2-14-6#ixzz3KJORrFyn.

2. Robert E. Litan & Hal J. Singer. (August 13, 2010). Why Business Should Oppose Net Neutrality. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/08/why-business-should-oppose-net-neutrality.

Bottom of Form