Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Net Neutrality Paper Free Essays

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. (Merriam-Webster Online, 2010) The United States of America is considered a â€Å"free market†, in some cases. Internet Seen,’ice Providers own the tangible cables and pipes providing the service of connectivity to the internet. We will write a custom essay sample on Net Neutrality Paper or any similar topic only for you Order Now They are the bridge. They own the bridge. In a free market, they can regulate heir bridge how they see fit, within the parameters of the law. This same model is expressed by cell phone companies in the communication industry as well as cable companies in the television industry. Cellular phone companies own all the variables that make up their network. They then sell you service to connect to their network based off of their interpretation of what the market will allow. They dictate what you pay, how much usage you are allowed and what types of usages are allowed. Cable companies evolved in the same manner. Once a free entertainment source is now a billion dollar year industry marked with the footprints of capitalism. Cable companies put forth the ground work to make the cable experience what it is today. In return, they profit from their investments to do so. They also dictate what we pay and what types of usage we are allowed. These cable and cellular communication companies have thrived in our free market mentality but in the same instance have been regulated by government when it applies to the internet. In the same way they own the physical cables, the pipes underground, the satellites and the air space, they are providing the bridge. Without their bridges, the consumer cannot access the internet. In a free market society, we tell companies to manage their business according to what the market will allow. The market has allowed the cell phone industry to operate without regulation. The cable companies have thrived without regulation under the allowance of the market. The internet is no different. Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned or possessed by a person or jointly by a group of people. Property is synonymous with ownership. Ownership is the exclusive right to possess and dispose of what oh own. â€Å"When you pull out the government, you take out socialism, and when you remove the rights of ownership and place the benefits broadly on the least able to pay for them, you have communism. It isn’t yet clear if socialism will work in the U. S. , and it is doubly doubtful that communism (aka â€Å"Net neutrality†) will ever work. † (Ender, 2010) In economic terms, calculability is the ability to exclude others from use of a good. Rivalry is when one person’s use of a good diminishes another’s ability to use that good. When you have a resource that doesn’t have calculability but does display rivalry you have what is known as ‘Tragedy of the Commons† which is an overused, under maintained resource (aka â€Å"the free-rider problem†). In Africa arose the possibility of the elephant becoming extinct from humans killing them for their hides and tusks. Two countries decided to act against this problem, Kenya and Rhodesia. Kenya took the approach of placing a ban on elephant poaching while Rhodesia gave property owners Private Property Rights to the elephants with incentives for elephant maintenance. Jenny’s elephant population decreased while Rhodesia increased dramatically. The conclusion of when property rights are given, ownership of property motivates protection and care for the property more efficiently than federal regulations. In economic terms the internet would be classified as an Clubbable resource. The classification of rival or non-rival is debatable due to bandwidth. However if we look at this example from the rival standpoint, it bears identical resemblance of the private goods industry. When property rights are given with incentives, the elephant will prosper. If ownership is revoked and regulations are implemented by government, we have Tragedy of the commons. Sip’s currently don’t have incentives to make broadband bandwidth accessible in all parts of our country due to lack of profitability. Therefore our elephant population (internet) will decrease. This is a simple example of how capitalism is a great model for economical success. It is the same model that has molded our country for over two centuries. Why the model is continually changing I do not know. The Internet is not public property. Telecommunications companies have spent billions Of dollars on network infrastructure all over the world. They did so in the hope of selling communications services to customers willing to pay for them. The government has no right to effectively nationalize Sip’s by telling them how run their networks. Proponents of net neutrality love to invent hypothetical scenarios of ways companies could abuse customers. It is true that a free society gives people the freedom to be stupid, wrong, and even malicious. The great thing about capitalism is that it also gives people the freedom to decide whom they want to do business with. A socialized Internet takes away that freedom and turns it over to politicians and lobbyists. Why do â€Å"net neutrality’ advocates ridicule politicians for impairing the Internet to a â€Å"series of tubes,† and then trust them to regulate it? (vessels, 2007) The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the ability to regulate wireless network providers by reclassifying them as Title II common carrier services, essentially equating them with cable and phone companies. That type of regulation would allow the FCC to impose traffic equality laws on all carriers, where under Washman’s proposal wireless providers would have been exempt. Verizon, AT and wireless association ACTA have opposed the PC’s measures, while Google, Faceable and Keep, among various public interest groups strongly supported them. (Prism, 2010) Phone and cable companies have argued that increased regulation of Internet practices could have a detrimental effect on the industry. They argue that tough regulations could deter network investments and hinder the expansion of broadband infrastructure. The free-speech objection to net neutrality has also gained some ground recently. The National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCAA) and ATT began citing First Amendment objections to net neutrality in public discussions and in filings with the FCC this year. The free-speech argument states that, by interfering with how phone and cable companies deliver Internet traffic the government would be manipulating the free-speech rights of providers such as ATT, Verizon and Compass. Jerome, 201 0) The Federal Communications Commission first established rules in 1 965 for cable systems which received signals by microwave antennas. In March 1 966, the Commission established rules for all cable systems (whether or not served by microwave). The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co. , 392 US. 157 (1968). The Court ruled that â€Å"the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imper ative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities. The Court found the Commission needed authority over cable systems to assure the preservation of local broadcast service and to effect an equitable distribution of broadcast services among the various regions of the country. In March 1 972, new rules regarding cable television became effective. These rules required cable television operators to obtain a certificate Of compliance from the Commission prior to operating a cable elevation system or adding a television broadcast signal. The rules applicable to cable operators fell into several broad subject areas franchise standards, signal carriage, network program non-duplication and syndicated program exclusivity, non-broadcast or cable casting services, cross-ownership, equal employment opportunity, and technical standards. Cable television operators who originated programming were subject to equal time, Fairness Doctrine, sponsorship identification and other provisions similar to rules applicable to broadcasters. Cable operators were also required to maintain certain records ND to file annual reports with the Commission concerning general statistics, employment and finances. In succeeding years, the Commission modified or eliminated many of the rules. Among the more significant actions, the Commission deleted most of the franchise standards in 1 977, substituted a registration process for the certificate of compliance application process in 1978, and eliminated the distant signal carriage restrictions and syndicated program exclusivity rules in 1980. In 1 983, the Commission deleted its requirement that cable operators file financial information. In addition, court actions led to the deletion of the pay cable programming rules in 1977. In October 1 984, the U. S. Congress amended the Communications Act of 1 934 by adopting the Cable Communications policy Act of 1984. The 1 984 Cable Act established policies in the areas of ownership, channel usage, franchise provisions and renewals, subscriber rates and privacy, obscenity and lockers, unauthorized reception of services, equal employment opportunity, and pole attachments. The new law also defined jurisdictional boundaries among federal, state and local authorities for regulating cable elevation systems. Following the 1984 Cable Act, the number of households subscribing to cable television systems increased, as did the channel capacity of many cable systems. However, competition among distributors of cable services did not increase, and, in many communities, the rates for cable services far outpaced inflation. Responding to these problems, Congress enacted the Cable Television Consumer protection and Competition Act of 1992. The 1 992 Cable Act mandated a number of changes in the manner in which cable television is regulated. In adopting the 1 992 Cable Act, Congress dated that it wanted to promote the availability of diverse views and information, to rely on the marketplace to the maximum extent possible to achieve that availability, to ensure cable operators continue to expand their capacity and program offerings, to ensure cable operators do not have undue market power, and to ensure consumer interests are protected in the receipt of cable service. The Commission has adopted regulations to implement these goals. In adopting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress noted that it wanted to provide a pro-competitive, De-regulatory national policy ramekin designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. The Commission has adopted regulations to implement the requirements of the 1996 Act and the intent of Congress. General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet, 2000) In the end life contains complex decision making decisions that come from those with opposing opinions. If we take positive economic results from the past and try to replicate them today, it might begin with clear and concise repertory rights pertaining to the internet. Let the free and open market drive competition to fuel creativity and innovation. How to cite Net Neutrality Paper, Papers

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.