Part of this section of the course examines structural regulation of the cable industry in terms of ownership rules that impact how large cable operators may become in supplying households with subscriptions and offering affiliated programming on their systems. Another form of regulation that is going to impact the cable industry as well as phone companies like Verizon supplying video subscriptions is network neutrality.
The issue of network neutrality addresses Internet Service Providers (those who supply you with the physical connection to the Internet) and the degree to which they may control and manage their network, including potentially the user’s experience. Nearly a year ago, the FCC decided to impose network neutrality rules on cable operators and phone companies that are providing wired broadband, high-speed Internet services but decided to have fewer restrictions on wireless carriers. The FCC’s rules will took effect on November 20.
For a primer on the issue, check out CNN’s overview on network neutrality. After watching this coverage, please review an online blog discourse between two experts in this area entitled “Keeping the Internet Neutral? Christopher S. Yoo and Timothy Wu Debate“. Please read the debate and provide responses of why you believe either Wu or Yoo’s arguments have merit. In other words, how may the issues they raise impact your own ability to access, share and even create web content, services and applications? In addition, please feel free to respond to whether you perceive any key differences between wired (cable modem, DSL) and wireless broadband (3G/4G smartphones and development of “apps”). Do you believe the FCC’s rules are the right decision (click here for a summary of what the rules mean for you)? Why should wireless be treated differently than wired Internet when it comes to network neutrality?
Please respond to any of the above questions and feel free to offer links to sites and/or videos that are compelling, including those with public advocacy or industry arguments. The blog entry is due March 23.
Intro to Telecommunications RTV 3001 Spring '12 
I believe that Network Neutrality doesn’t have to be a terrible thing. I agree with both Wu and Yoo’s arguments and they both have valid points to argue but I have to agree more with Yoo’s standing on the issue.
I agree that a certain type of Network Neutrality should be placed on the internet. I believe that everyone should have EQUAL access to the internet in forms of bandwidth, content, applications and that they should be able to have equal services that other major companies utilize. “Deviations from network neutrality may represent nothing more than network owners’ attempts to satisfy the increasingly intense and heterogeneous demands imposed by end users.” This is a great quote stated by Christopher Yoo stating that users can choose what content they want to do on the internet.
There are three high-level rules to the FCC’s Network Neutrality laws: transparency; no blocking; and no UNREASONABLE discrimination. These three points are a good foundation in order to ensure that their law is enforced and that equal access is granted to ISP’s. Transparency states that broadband providers (fixed and wireless) need to be upfront about how they manage their networks and how they communicate. No blocking is where an ISP would not be able to pick and choose apps or service to block in order to improve network performance. For example, your ISP would not be able to block Netflix’s streaming capabilities. No unreasonable discrimination is basically how an ISP can govern their operations and their network. They can manage their networks but it can’t be “unreasonable” or discriminate against specific applications. If an internet service provider doesn’t have adequate equipment, technology and services to provide and distribute; these equal forms of access cannot be made.Likewise, certain monopolies will dominate over the others.
Also, after looking at a couple articles online I feel that this story helped make this topic more clear.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html
CNN makes a great point in the online video about net neutrality. It gave a clear-cut definition of how in the future, internet service providers could filter content that the web puts out through different tubes making it easier for some websites to run more smoothly than certain sites that may cause slower access due to user traffic. Seeing as how these rules by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) became public more than fourteen months ago, I personally haven’t seen much change in how the government wants to keep every website moving at the same speed regardless of bandwidth, or channel capacity. I agree with the FCC in its attempt at disband malware or child pornography to travel through the “tubes” of all internet service providers like Comcast or Brighthouse. This concept would have to allow high-trafficking sites like Hulu or Netflix or even non-paid torrent sites to be sent without unreasonable discrimination to the subscriber. All of this also brings up the point of the differences in wired or wireless communication. There’s no doubt in my mind that a wired connection via coaxial cable or fiber optics should differ ONLY with wireless technology like 4G phones in the speed of information gathering and NOT in what is filtered because of “tubes” or bandwidth issues. We’ve come a long way since the days of dial-up internet and it’s very clear that the world craves faster speeds in downloading and uploading, but it isn’t fair to the subscriber to have legal information filtered by the ISP, which I believe the FCC is doing a great job in curtailing. Hopefully in the near future, websites will continue to rely solely on advertisement and not (using the bread analogy), make the user pay more for a site or service coming through a smaller tube.
I do think that both professors make good arguments, but at this point I am not sure whom to agree with. I believe in the long run regulation may have the best approach as we have learned throughout this class that when forms of broadcasting go unregulated, chaos typically ensues. The ability for service providers to regulate their own content may have benefits to Internet feeds as the company can immediately make adjustments. The way the Internet is growing and changing, the way it is regulated may need to be changed as well. New applications take much more bandwidth, which slows the process of receiving data. I believe that Yoo makes a good comparison between smaller networks and mom-and-pop shops. Competition that happens in the economic world with the free market leads these small specialty shops to be closed down when major department or super stores, such as Walmart, come into an area. Yoo hopes that with regulation, this will not be the case with smaller networks. He states, “Network neutrality, in contrast, threatens to foreclose this outcome and instead forces networks to compete on price and network size – considerations that favor the largest players”. In forcing networks to compete similarly to a free market example, stronger networks could eventually overpower the smaller, creating a monopoly where the strongest network could control the Internet and set prices.
I think his solution to give priority to traffic associated with time-sensitive applications, such as video, has merit. Sites such as youtube, hulu, facebook, etc are all extremely popular sites, therefore during peak hours we see the speed of connection slow. If networks were able to give more speed during peak hours to these sites, we would not have the delays associated with peak hours. I do not think it would make too much of a difference to other sites as they will not have as many individuals attempting to view them so allotting greater bandwidth to popular sites should not slow the connection to the less popular sites.
But when looking at the FCC’s new rules, I wonder if Wu is correct and network neutrality is the way to go in order to keep networks from discriminating against services that do not directly benefit their bottom line. It would be highly unfair for a service provider to slow the processes of sites such as youtube or hulu because they are not a part of their network. I did also like the idea that individuals could file informal or formal complaints to the FCC about network violations. The requirement for networks to be completely transparent about their performance, plan options and pricing. The argument for network neutrality that Wu presents has many good points in it as well. I believe that the situation is not as black and white as we would like it to be and both professors have justifiable reasons to support or counter the FCC’s bill for network neutrality.
I do much of my work on the Internet, whether it be for school or for business. The majority of our family business comes through Internet generated word of mouth and private searches for our services. I would worry if each network only dedicates bandwidth to sites which a beneficial to their own network that my sites would be inaccessible to individuals on networks that do not allow enough bandwidth for smaller sites.
I do believe that the general overview of the rules that were released by the FCC seem to be good ones. The idea for transparency I believe has the most merit as everyone should know what their options are and what their money is getting them. As for blocking, I believe it should be an issue but certain sites should be blocked if they take up unnecessary space, such as inappropriate material. Not allowing for discrimination is also something I believe should be supported, as I do not want my service provider to block my websites or slow my browsing ability based on personal discriminations.
What I did find was that certain researches believe that because of the limited amount of bandwidth there is available mixed with the way internet content is growing, networks will not be able to handle the incoming information. These reasons, along with network neutrality will keep individuals from innovation.
I believe that networks should be allowed to make government regulated filtering that helps to keep the bandwidth from being cluttered with unnecessary spam or computer viruses.
I do not see a difference when it comes to wired vs. wireless technology. I do not feel as though I fully understand the difference. From what I have researched I have found that because wireless providers are also wired providers, many believe that the network neutrality should still apply to wireless networks. So far, the FCC has stated wireless must be transparent and cannot out rightly block content. According to a report on wired.com, “The government’s decision to waive unfair discrimination provisions against wireless broadband was based on a widely vetted evaluation of the competitive nature of that market.” I believe that for right now, wireless is such a new medium it should be allowed to change and grow before too many regulations are put on it and if the FCC finds it needs regulations in order to facilitate innovation then they should proceed.
Network Neutrality is a term that I have not heard of before this assignment, but poses a significant dispute. The lines are clearly drawn between the opponents of the FCC’s regulations. As stated by CNN’s Money Writer David Goldman, “there is a huge and expanding amount of files that are being sent along the internet and the Internet Service Provider’s feel that they should have full control over this.”
The FCC mostly agrees as long as all content is treated equally.
The lesson that helped me learn the simple meaning of this complex term network neutrality was Ali Velshi’s “Bread Example” on CNN’s YouTube video. This problem comes from ISP’s making decisions to favor their own products and services. This was clearly illustrated with grocery store analogy stocking their own brand of bread or requiring a fee for other bread companies to have their product sold in the store.
The ideas of network neutrality on both sides are not always easy to support. Vanderbilt University’s Professor Yoo illustrates that without some form of discrimination or oversight by the ISP’s, such services like internet telephony and streaming video would drastically fail as these rely strongly on a higher priority of internet traffic due to the time-sensitive applications. The FCC’s proposed regulations would not allow this.
On the other hand, Timothy Wu, Professor at Columbia Law School, states that without a fair and equal platform where all products can be utilized, we are hindering the growth rate of this country. Both of these expects in their field make strong, creditable arguments.
Undoubtedly, there are both positive and negative aspects revolving around this emerging neutrality debate. During my research, I found an interested paper from the Carnegie Mellon University that focuses on the search for a balanced policy. It claims that the network neutrality debate is focusing on the wrong issues and should shift towards the complex details of differentiating harmful discrimination from beneficial discrimination. Below is the address where you can find this paper.
http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=epp
Personally, I feel that neutrality is vital for innovation and for democracy since a “slanted” internet may repress independent voices as well as small entrepreneurs. Preserving a neutral network is therefore necessary for furthering First Amendment values. These values are best upheld by ensuring media and content diversity. Internet Service Providers should not get the power to act as editors of the free internet.
Word Count: 397
I agree with most of what you said about Network Neutrality. I also believe that it is important because it gives everyone the ability to access the internet in a similar way. As the CNN correspondent suggested, changing network neutrality could be compared to taking a very large tube of information and replacing it with a smaller tube. That smaller tube might be fine for those who only use email yet for those who stream video, and use more broadband would be out of luck, unless of course they paid the high fees that might come along with the new system.
Although I don’t agree with Professor Yoo, I do think he brings up a great point. He argues that without some discrimination, ISP will be unable to provide the best service for each individual person. He says that discrimination is needed to best serve the ISP.
I agree more with Professor Timothy Yu. In order for everyone to have similar access to the internet network neutrality is needed. I agree with you when you say that it could hinder the growth rate of this country. With more growth in regards to video sharing and social networking, the “big tube” is needed for everyone. It is unfair to the user to pay extra to receive what most of us already have, internet that is fast and capable of our high demands.
I checked out the paper that you posted and I agree with a lot of what it says. A sentence that stood out to me was “One old and simple way to favor some users is through preferred interconnection, i.e. to allow them to connect to the network with a higher-capacity link, or to pay less for the same capacity. This is still an option to discriminate among users, although it alone does not allow the network to discriminate among traffic from a given source.” This combines both professors opinions. It allows for discrimination, but positive discrimination where the user has the ability to use less data but pay the same amount. It also benefits the person that is using a lot of data by allowing them to do it at the same rate.
Overall I believe network neutrality is a great thing. However, I do believe that some discrimination can be used to separate users who use a lot of data and users that only use the internet for simple tasks like email. I do believe its wrong to change the way we receive information. Meaning, I do not think I should have to pay more to access things that I currently access.
Your post was very informative, and I think we have a similar viewpoint on the topic.
Network Neutrality does not have to be a bad thing and seems to have mixed views. I agree with both of the professor’s arguments but am not really sure why. CNN’s Ali Velshi does a good job at clarify network neutrality; this helped me understand FCC rules and regulations towards it.
I was a bit surprised at the negative and mixed responses to Network Neutrality because it has been public for over a year and I have not noticed or seen any changes in regards to speed and bandwidth. I agree that everyone should have equal speed, access and whatever else comes with the internet. There should also be certain kinds of Network Neutrality, for example banning offensive websites (child pornography) or even destructive websites (how to make a bomb). The internet is full of all sorts and as the technology is growing so will the internet and I believe that we may need to change the way we regulate it.
Also, it is only fair to regulate how much content goes through “pipes”, although getting more information or bandwidth may cost more money, some may only use the internet for emails where other use it for everyday purposes such as emails, games, movies, etc.
Christopher Yoo makes it clearer by comparing small networks to small locally owned shops or mom-and-pop shops; in this case competition in the economic world with the free market leads small locally owned shops to close down when major department stores open. He states “Network neutrality, in contrast, threatens to foreclose this outcome and instead forces networks to compete on price and network size—considerations that favor the largest players.” Yoo like the FCC hopes that with regulation, this will not be the case with smaller networks because they are given an equal chance.
Timothy Wu, also makes a valid argument by comparing Network Neutrality to discrimination, no one wants to believe in a system that bans discrimination completely.
Finally, I feel that no one will have one answer to Network Neutrality. By reading the professors blogs and both views of the CNN correspondents no one seems to have it totally figured out whether it is something good or bad. I believe the FCC has good intention when it comes to Network Neutrality.
I believe that network neutrality is important, but at the same time, as long as all Internet service providers can just be treated fairly and equally, then there should be no problems with Internet connectivity.
I like Yoo’s point where he talks about Akamai, a content-delivery network. This network helps provide consumers with faster and closer Internet services, because instead of a network like CNN having to send all of their information out from one central point, Akamai breaks it into closer points so consumers get their information quicker.
Wu also makes a good point when he states that nothing that gets banned ever gets fully banned everywhere. There will always be discrimination and there will always be people against that discrimination. When it comes to the Internet, it is hard to completely ban certain things from happening because each network can kind of make their own rules when they want to.
Along with Yoo and Wu’s arguments about network neutrality, the video also made a good analogy about network neutrality. The video talked about a grocery store selling bread and basically compared it to network neutrality by saying something along the lines of this:
It is like a grocery store taking all brands of bread off the shelves just because it isn’t the store brand. So the grocery store would only have their bread on the shelf, and they would ban all other breads from being sold at their store.
This is very valid compared to network neutrality because it is pretty much saying that network providers can’t provide anything but for themselves.
Now, the difference between wired Internet and wireless. There is a HUGE difference between these two because wired Internet takes 100x longer than wireless. Even though there can be interference in wireless Internet connections, wired Internet connections are by far the slowest connection because it has to connect through whatever building you are in. It is much more convenient to have wireless also because you could have wireless on your laptop and bring it anywhere that offers wireless Internet connection.
I can agree with Christopher Yoo when he states that net neutrality will help congested sites and offer other networks. The whole point of this is to provide a better way to browse the internet. It is also making it easier for the customer to have full access to whatever it is they are looking at/searching for. I think it is wrong for certain websites to charge someone to continue further into their webpage when you are able to go on to other providers and not have that issue. What interested me about the video we watched when saying it is like a grocery store taking bread that isn’t the stores off the shelf and only providing their bread. Similar to net neutrality, certain internet companies only care to provide “their” bread and nobody else’s. It’s like Yoo said, the web used to only be for emails and web-browsing. The way it is now, we are able to download videos, watch movies, music, etc. and delays much longer than what it used to. Net neutrality’s soul purpose is to change that and make websites put whatever they want on the internet but also not take up nearly as much time with delays and stop discriminating other sources.”Genachowski argued that the “freedom and openness of the Internet is unprotected.”” Of course this program wouldn’t make it to be harmful for internet providers to cause viruses or damage. Everything is taken to a certain level where net neutrality opens up companies to be more open and efficient to internet web-browsers. For wired and wireless internet, there is a huge difference between the two. Wired cable is limited access to only browsing the web in one spot, making it difficult to travel along the way while still picking up that internet access. For wireless internet, you are able to walk around anywhere with a router and pick up any time of signal to use the web as you please. Wireless seems much more easier to use when you are on the go, whereas wired internet, you are stuck in one spot for a certain amount of hours. However, there are times when there are too many people on the wireless router and you cannot connect to the internet.
I don’t think websites should be able to pay the internet provider company for using the provider’s bandwidth and space even though high volumes of traffic may cause the provider some technical problems. If Google generates a lot of traffic and it causes the provider’s connection to crash a lot- the provider shouldn’t be able to ask Google to pay more money for the high traffic. Especially users- they shouldn’t have to pay more for access to these high-trafficked websites. This net-neutrality ordeal sounds like the internet providers are just being big whiny babies. Grow up! If your servers are crashing because your (CNN referred to) “pipes” aren’t big enough to handle the high traffic volume then, find yourself a bigger pipe. How hard is that to figure out? I don’t see why users should have to pay for their preferences in website selection (whether it’s high traffic or not) and websites shouldn’t have to pay more because they generate high traffic and take up a lot of bandwidth. I like the points and the manner in which Christopher Yoo argued his points. I think he made his case much clearer than Timothy Wu, but Wu holds his ideas similar to mine thus, I have to agree with him. I also don’t think mobile devices and wireless internet should be treated any different than regular cable modem or DSL. They should all be able to reach the internet equally. My stand is based on the idea of “democracy” where if the internet started free, then everyone should be free to use the web without providers saying what websites users can visit and which ones they cannot visit.
Network Neutrality, why have I never heard about this? This is a BIG deal. This assignment is the first time I’ve heard of any discussion of changing the way we receive the Internet. I guess I never thought that could be possible. The whole basis and amazing part of the Internet is that it’s a solid platform to which everyone who has access can equally enjoy. In my opinion this sounds like the Internet service providers are being greedy and out to make more money (as if we don’t pay enough,) and cause even more ridiculously large conglomerates to form. Aren’t there enough conglomerates out there?! The world is already littered with enough Wal-marts and Mcdonald’s! No service provider should be allowed to pick and choose which websites they want to be slow or fast. The CNN bread example was a pretty awesome explanation of how this works. Right now we have plenty of “bread” choices in the “grocery store.” Taking all those away and only giving us one option is absolutely ridiculous. What if that grocery store’s bread sucks? We would never have the opportunity to try something new that might be…the best thing since sliced bread! (Bad joke, my bad.) This country was built on equal rights and opportunities. When looking at the debates, I guess I agree more with Christopher Yoo, mostly because I like his points about how the networks would have to compete on price and network size which would inevitably leave only to “larger players” (Google, Netflix) to fight it out. I hate this. How are we supposed to have a growing economy when we don’t support small businesses? I think the FCC’s new rules regarding Network Neutrality seem like a good basis for solving this dilemma. I will definitely be keeping my ears open for what happens with this issue in the future.
The way I see it, this situation acts as a double-edged sword. As with most things of this nature, I believe that compromise is the key. Both professors in the article gave excellent reasons backing their ideas and in my opinion, both should be considered. Timothy Wu brings up a point that is particularly important to me about the threat that some content won’t ever make it to the web because it is being over-looked by larger companies that have financial advantage. Yoo brings to light the technical aspect that the quality of how we are receiving content is also important, especially when it will help internet companies provide better service. For me, the answer lies in regulation. I think that the FCC is making the correct choice by approving these rules as long as the clause about “no unreasonable discrimination” is emphasized. I reference this part of the rules because for me, it has always been a realization that big corporations can and will break rules if they can get away with it. This being said, evidently there will always be incidences of scandal where a company takes advantage of its power, however, I do not think it is fair to make rules with the notion that they will be violated. It is the job of the “rule-makers” (the FCC) to make sure there is a feasible way to enforce these rules. In an age where the public is creating more content that companies are, it is really important that we feel that our content will be viewed and not discriminated against. If you consider the amount of ideas and information that could potentially be lost, it is possible that it would change the way people use the internet altogether.
Network neutrality directly affects me because I have used torrents to obtain material that may not have been available to me without paying for it. While this action is rare and I’m not a proponent of creator’s not being compensated for their artistic contribution, I also have to live within my means as a college student as my discretionary income is pretty low. I don’t think it is right for an Internet Service Provider to restrict my access to certain sites because it would cost me money to pay for certain television shows on premium cable, music, etc. My stance on the matter is entirely rooted in selfishness.
I understand why a company like Comcast would block off access to sites and slow down sites like Hulu or Netflix. The more prominent these sites become, subscription to channels like HBO or Showtime lessens and even basic cable viewership will drop. Preventing access to these websites forces the customer’s hand in paying for content and while it’s not the prettiest of business tactics, it’s one that the company could easily defend and point to the fact that piracy is the real problem, not them. I wouldn’t want people stealing material from a service I provide on another service that I also provide either.
I believe that variation in network neutrality will harm consumers and innovation. I think everybody should have access to the internet except if you abuse that privilege, for example, child pornography. Our government controls our internet service now and I approve of the amount of access we have as a country. I think we are given plenty of access now a days, for example, I can write a college english paper solely through the internet and not even set foot into a library. These new rules placed by the FCC would also change our generations ability to be in contact with one another 24/7, to have any type of knowledge at our fingertips, which is the main way our generation has made a profit. I do not agree with needing to pay for more internet access, that is discrimination and it is limiting knowledge to people who cannot afford it.
There are three high-level rules to the FCC’s Network Neutrality laws: transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination. Internet servers want to ration out internet access which could block websites. The ability for service providers to regulate their own content would have benefits because the provider could make adjustments immediately and filter the content on the web. A downfall would be enormous amount of data coming through the pipes that the internet service providers would not be able to handle. We need to allow internet service providers access to the internet because this is an expensive proposition. Consequently, the House and the Senate do not approve of the FCC’s net neutrality rules and President Obama has pledged to veto the bill if it ever makes it to his desk.
Jordan Hicks
RTV 3001
Blog 3
3-21-12
New net neutrality rules are being presented by the FCC, Federal Communications Commission. Net neutrality is the concept that everyone should have equal access to the Web. The goal of the net neutrality would be to reduce favoritism between Internet providers and companies. It would not be acceptable to block any particular site. I think blocking is the most important issue net neutrality would fix. In this way I agree with Timothy Wu. Wu says “Now I admit blocking is the clearest case where discrimination is bad, and it provides the strongest justification for network-neutrality rules.”
Net neutrality would ensure that I would be able to access the Internet equally and fairly. I also think it is very important that companies do not have to power to discriminate and filter which websites they provide. Currently, I feel we have a neutral Internet but I can foresee problems in the future. There are also positive aspects to not having a neutral Internet. According to Yoo “Deviations from network neutrality may represent nothing more than network owners’ attempts to satisfy the increasingly intense and heterogeneous demands imposed by end users.” In this situation I agree with Yoo. In today’s society, certain applications are being used more. E-mailing and web browsing are become less important than video streaming. Therefore, it might be beneficial to give more priority to websites that are being utilized more often.
As a whole, I don’t think net neutrality is a priority. I think it would be beneficial to prioritize the Internet to improve speed and efficiency. But, I do not think Internet providers should be allowed to block certain websites for business reasons.
Despite both men making good arguments, I find myself agreeing with Timothy Wu’s case for the Internet remaining neutral and leaving equal access for every website.
The CNN video gave good visuals and did an excellent job at bringing people unaware of the issue, such as myself, up to speed. The tube illustration lays it out clearly as every website should be able to run on equal footing. Service providers giving larger websites like Amazon and Google priority when it comes to bandwidth and loading times could end up becoming a detriment. While it is efficient, it would virtually eradicate smaller “mom and pop” websites, almost creating a monopoly over the Internet, serving the purpose of fulfilling the interests of the service. The comparison of this to how Wal-Mart puts smaller stores out of business is fairly accurate.
Yoo does bring up a good comparison with how Fed-Ex overnight mailing offer faster services for a higher price and how the internet can work the same way. But, it is still my opinion that web browsing should remain neutral as it truly does put everyone at an even playing field and even foster entrepreneurship and innovation (ex: Facebook). Wireless internet should indeed be treated differently than wired as it’s more open to public domains and not as controlled as a wired sevice provider.
I agree with Mr. Stickeler, “Network Neutrality is a term that I have not heard of before this assignment, but poses a significant dispute.” There are clearly pros and cons to “net neutrality” and various resources take different standpoints on the issue at hand.
Three aspects to net neutrality that are important to understand and familiarize oneself with are transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination.
The transparency requirement basically requires broadband providers – fixed and wireless – to be more transparent about their activities. They need to be upfront about how they manage their networks, how well (or poorly) their networks perform, as well as details about their plan options and pricing. Most ISPs would argue that they already do this, but if you disagree, you could conceivably take it up with the FCC.
In my opinion, I think transparency is the name of the game, when you are in a contract with a ISP or wireless supplier, the provider is upfront about what you are paying for but definitely not upfront about what you actually get. My big beef is with wireless device companies slowing bandwidth down after reaching a certain level of data and most people are unaware of this until someone points it out to them.
The no blocking aspect is different for fixed versus wireless. Fixed providers cannot block lawful content, apps, services, or “non-harmful” devices, or charge providers of these services for delivering traffic to and from their networks. Wireless providers, meanwhile, cannot block access to lawful Web sites or block apps that compete with their own voice or video telephony services. It does not apply to mobile broadband app stores.
Blocking has been around for years and most people haven’t noticed it (myself included) until it’s pointed out to him or her. Much of this net neutrality debate started in 2007 when Comcast was accused of blocking access to P2P networks like BitTorrent because people using BitTorrent on Comcast’s network were slowing down the experience for everyone else. Comcast denied cutting off access completely but said it did delay access to P2P sites during peak times. Under the FCC rules, an ISP would not be able to pick and choose apps or service to block in order to improve network performance. Your ISP would not be able to block access to Netflix’s streaming service, for example, or Xbox Live just because a select few people were clogging the system.
The previous examples and points also coincide with the no unreasonable discrimination aspect. This aspect allows ISP providers to manage its network (network management) by slowing down its bandwidth to handle an influx of users but not block “bandwidth-hungry” applications or services like Netflix or Hulu. This is where I think the FCC goes wrong because ISP providers are being allowed to block things such as child porn or spam but not able to block Bit torrent sites or torrent services in general. Seems kind of hypocritical to me. On one hand the FCC governs no blocking allowed and on the other it allows “reasonable” blocking. And this is where most ISPs and wireless carriers find loopholes in regulation to be able to “block” or “slowdown” bandwidth for competitive sites or applications.
All in all, I think net neutrality does aim to provide equal opportunity for websites to have equal bandwidth and be able to provide its consumers with favorable load times for websites which I believe is right but like anything else; the loop holes are always found and exploited and it’s normally done by a prominent web giant like Amazon or Google.
A quick observations before I dive into my stance on the issue of Network Neutrality. I am pretty baffled by the “I have never heard of network neutrality” comments. Not just that they exist, but how many of them. This is exactly what the companies in strong favor of invasive and questionably legal net neutrality practices want: ignorance. The less you know about the topic, the less you can take a stance and fight back against malicious greed.
What I think my peers have failed to mention about net neutrality is the influence of money. Similar to the “Super PAC” amendment, where corporations were able to throw (read: launder) as much money at a particular politician as they saw fit, I feel like net neutrality may go the same way.
I’m down with the Wu (not the Wu-Tang Clan, sadly) when it comes to his stance on development for the future:
“What’s bad about blocking, then? At an extreme, blocking can keep a better or cheaper product (VoIP) from coming to market at all, and often it can prevent such products from being offered in an effective form. That’s a problem, in turn, because if you believe that market entry and innovation are linked to economic growth, we’re ultimately talking about such policies hindering the growth rate of the country.”
Innovation once was the core of our country. Now, we lag far behind a staggering amount of other countries in terms of technological advancements. The sad truth is that, despite what you may have read, the best gadgets don’t boast the proud “Made in the USA” sticker anymore.
I also perceive a difference between 3G/4G devices and traditional dial-up/DSL/cable/fiber-based home internet services. I work out of a Verizon Wireless store, and while I no longer work as a sales rep for VZW, I’m still well-versed in their plans. The glaring difference between a 3G/4G phone or WiFi device (e.g. a MiFi) and traditional “cable” internet services is that, for all of the newer plans, there is a hard data cap. So now, similar to your minute rate plan, consumers are limited to the amount of information that can be received and transmitted during a particular billing period. This is troubling for a variety of reasons. If a company like a Verizon or an AT&T can put a limit on how much one can receive and transmit, who’s to say that they won’t take a step further and dictate what and even WHEN one can view something?
Network neutrality is something that has been an issue for some time now but now just recently we are hearing the strong notions for change. I am not sure if the majority of Internet users understand what this would mean for them but it is a topic of quite importance for every internet user. The network neutrality idea favors the Internet service providers and lays the burdens and fees of high traffic on the users themselves. I feel as though this call for change is greedy on behalf of the big name service providers. These companies are already making out pretty well for their services. To add fees for high traffic that they themselves cannot handles is unwarranted. As the Internet expands and more users interact I believe these Internet service providers should follow suit and do the same thing.
I do however agree with Christopher Yoo, who claims that network neutrality will help congestions on certain high profile sites. He remains correct in his theory but I do not feel like the change needs to occur the way he says. Instead I feel the method that CNN referred too, involving the Internet service providers finding more bandwidth, or “bigger pipes” to handle more traffic.
I myself see network neutrality directly affecting my Internet usage. Not only would I be restricted from access to certain sites, I would have to completely revamp the way I use the Internet. No longer would I be able to access sites for streaming or downloading torrents. The Internet used to be relatively free, why do these service providing companies need to make more money off of us?
In the debate concerning Network Neutrality, I stand on a swaying fence. Each professor made points that I can agree with, which only makes a concrete decision more difficult.
Yoo explains that the Internet is not what it was in the past, and therefore needs different discrimination. He recalls the Internet of the past, a time of emoticon-free emails and simple web browsing. These are truly the days of yore. Today, we demand super speed and multiple tabs and hilarious video, all whilst we web chat. In fact, at this moment, I have three tabs, four windows (including CNN on Youtube.com) and my word doc open all at once. How is this all possible? As Yoo states, “One obvious solution would be to give a higher priority to traffic associated with time-sensitive applications.” This makes sense. If I were simply checking my emails, I would not require nearly as much bandwidth as I would if I were multitasking.
However, Yoo adds, “Unfortunately, this is precisely the type of discrimination between applications that network neutrality would condemn.” But is this discrimination such a bad thing? It seems necessary, how could it be wrong?
Wu examines the most unnerving aspect of network neutrality, which he defines as blocking. Of course, the lewd term immediately pins me against any discrimination. As Wu explains, there is far too much temptation to block or overcharge, and the last thing most companies need is any incentive to charge more. Blocking will inhibit new- possibly cheaper- forms of technology from emerging.
Unfortunately, I would agree with Wu in his assumption that, “incumbents, particularly in a monopoly position, have a strong incentive to block market entry and innovative technologies that threat their existing business model.” This is a scary thought. Of course, new technology will arrive after increase demand, but at what cost to the little guy. For instance, Facebook and its insightful design was created by a college student –albeit a fricken genius, but a college student nonetheless. What technology or advancements will we be without due to blocking and discrimination?
It is the inherent responsibility of the FCC to regulate this regulation. As one of my proceeding posters stated, the telecommunications business needs regulation. I agree, network neutrality may need to exist to regulate this industry, but only under its own proper regulation.
At first, net neutrality seems like a fair and organized way to regulate equal access to the Web. Not only does it seem like it, it is. However, in this case, fair isn’t always what’s best.
Professor Wu and Professor Yoo both make valid points in their blogs to each other, but Wu really raised more questions for me. He focuses on and brings up the subjects of blocking and discrimination.
What really caught my attention is when he says, “My faith is that economic growth is driven by market entry.” This is completely true and also why America has been one of the most prosperous countries to date. Competition is what our economy thrives off of. If you take that away and make everything on the same level or playing field, then what will motivate the creation of new innovations? We live in an ever-changing world and are programmed to expect the next best thing. This isn’t possible without constant creation and the freedom to do so at a faster pace. There is no time for net neutrality.
I agree with his point when he writes about blocking better or cheaper products from market entry. He says, “…if you believe that market entry and innovation are linked to economic growth, we’re ultimately talking about such policies hindering the growth rate of the country.”
Some Web content like YouTube videos or Netflix are meant to be received faster than others, and it hasn’t raised any major problems yet so I don’t see the need to enforce net neutrality at this point.
I believe that the development of wireless broadband has conditioned us to expect things faster and to expect them no matter where we are. Applications have made almost every aspect of our lives more accessible. More and more people are accessing the Web away from home and away from wired broadband, and this is why wireless should be treated differently. It must be faster in order to stay in the technological competition.
I think that the FCC’s rules are the right decision. They all seem reasonable and seem to protect the Web and the broadband providers themselves. There isn’t anything wrong with asking them to be upfront about how they manage their networks, or asking them to not discriminate against specific applications. These rules should cover all the bases so that net neutrality won’t be necessary.
It took me awhile to understand the concepts of network neutrality, but once you get it, it seems pretty simple (on its face at least). On the one hand, network neutrality could be beneficial, allowing websites and applications to exist equally and have the same access as all the others; on the other hand, taking away the network neutrality could allow for users to decide how their internet treats certain websites in relation to how fast they can be accessed. If I had to choose a side, I think I would be for the FCC’s rules on network neutrality. I would not want to have to pay more money for separate services on the internet. I know the convenience of having Netflix and sites like that work faster than smaller sites would be great, but I also would not want to pay more money for something like that to occur. If that is how they plan on doing it. I would much rather prefer that my internet service provider gave all the websites and apps the same amount of bandwidth and speed as the rest. It just seems like the more logical and fair choice. Also going through the readings and watching the videos, I have found that they have made a good point. With “discrimination” on the internet, smaller websites and businesses would not be treated the same, making the bigger companies’ websites more easily accessible. This would obviously affect how they get there word out, and with everything moving to the internet, they could eventually die out. This is discouraging to anyone who would want to start up a small business.
There are some positives and negatives about network neutrality, as discussed by Yoo and Wu. However, I think that the laws promoting network neutrality now are overexaggerated. It seems lawmakers are anxious that a monoply by one Internet Service Provider is in the near future (like in the coming months). But something like this has only happened once with Verizon, and it was with such a smaller magnitude.
Even with its cons, I support network neutrality. The only reason why is because I think a bigger company, such as Netflix, would get more of an upper-hand than a third-party-operated site. If that site is trying to sell something, then I think the slowdown of speed on that site may turn away customers. And I would be scared if a revolution was to start in America, the government would allow for the shut down of all pro reformist sites.
Overall, I dont think network neutrality is a big deal. I mean, I don’t think an internet service provider would intentionally slow down a website to a point that a consumer couldn’t use it. Plus, internet is a free market. There are many internet providers that a user could subscribe to. So if a consumer was unhappy with the speed of one company’s internet, then they could switch to another. Also, the speed may only be delayed by a few seconds at the most, which wouldn’t bother me. I mean, “back in the day,” we would have to search for hours in encyclopedias for information, and now, we get information in less than a second, and we’re still not happy with it.
I was also satisfied with CNN’s coverage of the topic. One of my favorite CNN reporters to watch (but not the best) is Nancy Grace. Here is a good Nancy Grace clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWPY7b35vF4
Before this blog assignment, I had never heard of network neutrality (and after reading a few other blog posts I know that I am not the only one). Based on what I have read and watched so far, I agree with Wu. Wu argued that there would be a problematic side of access tiering, due to big networks teaming up and consequent discrimination. Wu called this Most Favored Nation discrimination and he says it “distorts” competition. This discrimination doesn’t always allow the best product to wins, but the product/company with the best connection to its access provider.
As stated in the CNN video with Ali Velshi, those who oppose net neutrality do so because in today’s technologically advancing world, there is an enormous amount of data coming through the “pipes” including HD videos and other large files that the internet service providers won’t be able to handle; therefore, they believe that internet service providers need to be in control over their own networks.
People today are used to an Internet where everything is accessible and we also live in a society where people do not like change. I agree with Ainsley, that yes there needs to be new regulations in an evolving technology or else chaos might follow, but I also know that society is reluctant to change. I just don’t want to see the FCC get too comfortable and gain too much control. There is a limit to these limits and the amount of change that consumers would allow before rioting and forcing a change.
I was not very familiar with Network Neutrality before reading these articles. Based on the links provided, I could understand each point of view presented. There is so much data coming through the networks that they must come up with a way to control the flow of the bandwidth and I think that Network Neutrality will probably help the providers with this issue. With new technology come new solutions. It seems fairer and less complicated to treat service providers equally concerning Network Neutrality so that all the access is divided evenly. Both professors make valid points and arguments. I agree with Christopher Yoo in suggesting that creating new networks would have a good outcome and that internet traffic can become less of an issue by using network neutrality. While smaller companies should not be discriminated against, it is understandable that larger networks should feel that they are entitled to more bandwidth access. Technology is constantly changing and improving and the consumer expects that they should be able to access certain information and applications within seconds, but it is not always so easy. As a consumer, I think that Network Neutrality is most practical because I use the Internet for many tasks in my everyday life. I depend on access to certain Internet websites to be able to complete assignments and keep in contact with my teachers and my employer. Users should not have to pay to access websites that are highly congested. Hopefully the FCC’s decision will be a good solution to the problems the professors have addressed.
The video CNN made about ‘network neutrality’ was very intriguing to be because I recently did a project in my analyzing media class. The project consisted of evaluating large corporations (for example: GE, NBC and Comcast) and mapping out the entities they own. When doing so the class was able to see that a select few companies control multiple other companies in which we though stood alone. This posed to the class an interesting argument and shocking realization that large corporations have control over a majority of our mediums. The CNN video connected the idea of one network containing power over the consumers to the point where there will be no other option but to comply with what is regulated.
As for the arguments between Yoo and Wu, I can see from Yoo’s point of view where he is encouraging competition and the allocation of broadband. He presents the positive side really well. Yes, I agree that regulating the service will act as a diffuser and could advance us in technology because we are allocating the direction of connection due to broadband width and capacity size. With recent developments in the internet more bandwidth is needed due to larger files being shared among electronic devices. The idea of directing or routing it differently to maintain a quick ‘speed’ is understandable. My only concern with this routing is the control over the content the servers will provide. This could lead to bias distribution and a dictatorship in material. Here is where I side with Wu, if ‘network neutrality’ takes effect, companies will have control over their service and what is provided; therefore they can charge more depending on the service. As I discovered in my other class Comcast is a company that now has a large share in NBC. The company NBC delegates over/owns many heavily used websites all over the world. If the NN goes into effect they will not only have control of the product, the service and the provider but also over what you will be able to have access to and how much you will have to pay. The idea of the World Wide Web will not be the same. Currently we are able to access many ideas, blogs, materials and research. I see the NN as a way to ‘block’ and control what the American public can and cannot see. As Wu says, “there’s another type of bad discrimination—picking favorites, or choosing one company out of many to favor.” Connect this statement another thought that I agree with Wu is that, “ I am skeptical. I think this view of incumbent behavior has been discredited, and that in general, incumbents, particularly in a monopoly position, have a strong incentive to block market entry and innovative technologies that threat their existing business model.” The idea of allowing a company to allocate what site is loaded faster than another will lead to discrimination. I agree with Wu and think that companies will create deals with service providers so their site loads faster than others. This is creating a discrimination between larger corporations with money available to do so verses smaller corporations. Also an example stated was that one search engine would be faster than another therefore making it the leading and most used site. The companies will ultimately control who will be the best and what consumers will use the most.
Wireless should be treated differently than wired Internet when it comes to network neutrality because the production and distribution is different.
Overall, I feel NN would cause more harm than good. I think giving this power to large corporations will create a dictatorship over consumers and it won’t be realized until it is too late.
**NN= network neutrality**
Well, after looking at the debate between Yoo and Wu, all I could think about as I read Wu’s point of view was that the internet has become a necessity in today’s world. No matter what, our society at least in America, is driven by technology, especially advancing technology that involves the use of the internet. Soon, news stations won’t even air over the television as more and more people just go straight to the internet for instant, up-to-date coverage. And as this country seems to be losing its sense of democracy these days and allowing the government to make all of our decisions for us, I feel like we will allow this network neutrality go through and allow the already powerful corporation gain just a little more power over our lives.
It’s all a plot to allow the rich get to get richer as well as a way to censor and gain more control over the internet, as it has become the one place in our country where we can do or say almost whatever we want. I feel as though the government doesn’t like the freedom we have with the internet, and this is could be a way to create some regulation without being accused of regulating as they are instead using the corporations to do that for them. If these companies have control over all internet access and usage, then yes, they will try and start charging more for individual website access as well as faster bandwidth speed, but they will also most likely be able to start regulating the material that is put up on the sites that they control. None of these companies will want too negative of content in their network as it could look bad on their face (i.e. porn).
I personally don’t use the internet enough to really care what better technology could be used if the internet was separated by different services, but I do know as a student looking to work in the broadcasting field that I am going to need the internet, and don’t want to have to keep paying more and more money for access to certain sites or for my connection to stay fast.
To begin, this concept was extremely hard for me to choose a position on, because the activist in me screams that discrimination is wrong ALL THE TIME. After taking a step back, I realized that I believe that discrimination is wrong when it violates our basic human rights. (For example, I don’t think firing someone who expresses a lazy work ethic is wrong. However, firing someone because of their race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. is wrong). With all of this being said, I still agree with Wu’s point of view and how discrimination of the internet would allow large markets to inherently take control of our internet… just as large markets have taken control of our country. I’m quite incline to believe that one of the key factors in the discrimination within net neutrality is so large markets can continue to be in a position of power, which is just not fair. Everyone should have equal opportunity and you shouldn’t be able to pay to have the upper hand.
Going back to what I stated about discrimination being wrong in certain cases but not others, I believe that it is ok to generalize in the sense that it is not ok for companies to block people from using other services that might compete with their own. It is ok to say this as well as include what is known as “usage notes” in the dictionary- a disclaimer in which this concept can be used. Discrimination is NOT ok if it interferes with someone’s right to access different sites that may be competitive to the host or require a lot of bandwidth. HOWEVER, it is ok for this concept to tackle the gray area of when it is ok to “discriminate” in certain situations in regards to child pornography or spam. I say this because not everything is black and white. As long as you can tackle the gray areas in life, there doesn’t leave much room for misinterpretation.
As for wireless vs. wired internet, one of the articles stated a slight difference in the two, one being that Fixed providers cannot block lawful content, apps, services, or “non-harmful” devices, or charge providers of these services for delivering traffic to and from their networks. Wireless providers, meanwhile, cannot block access to lawful Web sites or block apps that compete with their own voice or video telephony services. With Wireless, it appears that they can get away with a lot more, especially within the smartphone community. For example, different phone companies can limit the number of data you can access within a billing interest. Another thing that comes to mind is how, if you “jailbreak” your iphone (i.e. unlock it so you can use any network and download any number of apps, among other things), your apple care will become null and void. So, even if you have paid for apple care, if your phone in jailbroken (I’m not sure if this is completely illegal or just severely frowned upon), even if your phone breaks, apple will not honor your apple care. I don’t think this is completely fair because it’s not our fault that apple hasn’t found a way to stop people from jailbreaking their phones. Maybe if it wasn’t so easy, people would think twice about doing it.
I had not heard of Network Neutrality before looking at the links provided. While watching the CNN video something that helped me better understand Network Neutrality was the bread example. I liked the analogy of the single grocery store that could either only put their own bread brand on the shelf or charge a fee for other brands of bread to be on their shelf. I can really see both the positives and negatives of Network Neutrality and although I am still on the fence, I would say I am leaning more towards it being a positive thing. I think Network Neutrality could end up being very beneficial.
I agree with the FCC that it should be a compromised legislation. I think the companies should be able to control their own networks but treat them all equality and not show bias. I don’t think they should be able to make decisions with companies they are closer to or favor. I think the main thing that has to be done is to keep the consumer in mind. I think it would be wrong for a network to be able to wrongly enforce their power and use it to only benefit them. The internet is a way of life now and American’s spend a huge chunk of time on the internet every day which basically means consumers will have to comply with whatever the networks decide. This means that consumers would be essentially helpless if a network did decide to abuse their power.
Both Yoo and Wu made valid points in their arguments, however, I seem to side more with Timothy Wu. Timothy Wu made a valid point stating that nothing that gets banned is fully banned everywhere I agree with that. I think Wu is right and that Network Neutrality would really help regulate networks and ensure that they would not discriminate against those that do not benefit them. I do agree with Yoo that competition might be a good thing and will add to diversity but still feel it may end up hurting consumers in the end. I do think that id different protocols were employed that would help smaller networks find a market niche and help them survive and strive.
Overall I do feel that Network Neutrality would be beneficial and would ensure that networks not abuse their power and help against discrimination. It will also provide equal opportunity for equal bandwidth for websites. I think there will be a lot of kinks and revisions to work out but think Network Neutrality is a smart thing.
At first I was really unsure of what network neutrality is and how it works exactly. I started watching the CNN video and got a little overwhelmed because the reporter was talking way too fast. He kept explaining that service providers wanted to regulate the internet, but I didn’t quite understand to what extent this would occur. It wasn’t until I saw the bread example that he showed that it all started to make sense to me! I am more of a visually learning, so be being able to see what he was talking about helped me grasped the concept more. The pipe example, though it was funny, solidified it more for me. It also made me feel uncomfortable with the idea of service providers regulating my internet. It reminded me of China’s situation. I would like to keep my ability to freely surf the web and be able to receive all the content equally. I’m sure that most people would agree that network neutrality is something that should be in place for all internet users (as long as the content is legal).
After reading the “Keeping it Neutral” article, I didn’t realize that there would also be drawbacks to network neutrality. To me, it sounded perfect because I don’t want to be restricted. The article made an excellent point about safety. Since network neutrality does not allow for regulation, the internet’s security is in question. I feel that both opinions are well thought out and insightful on the issue. I had a hard time agreeing with one particular person because both have great insight. No solution is truly perfect, but having information on all the options available is a great way to do research. I’m hoping the internet remains neutral and that the bill does not pass.
Both Yoo and Wu have valid points within their arguments but I have to err more to side of Yoo on this one.
I believe that the Internet, a marketplace of seemingly endless space for a seemingly endless selection of content, should provide equal access to everyone with a connection.
Neutrality is important in making it harder for companies, especially large corporations, to sway Internet service providers in their favor. Transparency would force the service providers to disclose how they handle their bandwidth, applications, and content, exposing any convenient filtering and bandwidth accommodations to corporate subsidiaries.
Transparency and the regulation that comes with it is necessary in keeping the internet a balanced marketplace. The Internet gave exposure and opportunity to a variety of content and services. Allowing large corporations to gain a kind of monopoly on cyberspace and erecting a larger entry barrier into it would be highly detrimental.
Then again, an argument could be made against net neutrality in that it would only give government even greater sway over the market both on and offline, but its run by elected individuals, not faceless suits with endless bank accounts.
Net neutrality would allow the Internet to remain a place of innovation and keep the market in the hands of the people.
It pains me to see that ISP’s would consider blocking websites and throttling bandwidth allocation, especially behind the consumers backs. CNN does a very good job of explaining how it would be, trying to fit all that information into such a small pipe would have drastic effects on the people trying to use the internet, sure small things like email would have no problem, but they mentioned netflix and how we wouldn’t be able to stream from there anymore, if they were blocked in such a way. The way I see it though, is if video streaming itself got blocked then what would happen to youtube? A free site for streaming video would certainly have more people watching than netflix, so would our ISP’s go so far to limit us on watching videos from youtube?
They mention that comcast had block many IP’s from accessing P2P sites like bit torrent, but then they go on to say that bandwidth service would be throttled during peak times because of the strain it was taking. This leads me to believe that ISP’s would throttle everyone using streaming services during peak times. They are called peak times because that is when most people use them, therefore if everyone is using them and they are at the same time getting lower speeds, there could be some major backlash causing people to try and find other ISP’s. I’m just saying, blocking to me just does not solve any problem, in fact, it may open up a door to more problems.
Before researching this topic with the information provided, it was unaware of not only the topic but the debate surrounding it. After reading all sides, I have to agree with Wu when he explains that Choo made great points as far as what discrimination can do for the internet like resolving congestion problems or offering different types if networks. Like many, the question I have is do I really want my access to information to be determined by someone else. I enjoy being able to choose the information that encounter on the internet and I believe that by blocking certain areas of the internet we would never know if we are receiving all the information available or the things they want us to receive from the Internet. On the other hand, it would be a nice feature to not have so much congestion on the internet. It makes getting assignments and finding research very difficult and time consuming. Instead of having two extremes, why can’t there be a happy medium where certain information is blocked for every internet user to increase internet speed by a small amount. The CNN video on network neutrality perfectly explains how the information we receive on the internet is like right now. I found it interesting to see how much the flow of information would change by implementing the network neutrality. In conclusion, I too believe that both sides are supported by sufficient evidence and are expressed clearly in the information provided to us to research. While, there are disadvantages and advantages to both sides, I appreciate having both sides to compare to make the decision of where I stand.
Although this assignment is the first time that I have been introduced to network neutrality, I believe that it is a fairly basic concept to grasp, and see the positives to both neutrality and non-neutrality. Both Christopher Yoo’s and Timothy Wu’s arguments have merit, in my opinion. For example, Yoo explained in his first post how particular kinds of discrimination could be valuable to the Internet user, especially with the emergence of content-delivery networks that would make sites load much more quickly for those willing to pay for it. Wu combated this argument with the valid point of the existence of good and bad discrimination—blocking child pornography sites for obvious reasons, versus blocking sites with competitive material. Overall, their arguments seemed to revolve around this argument: Is it more important for competition for the big businesses and “natural monopolies” to thrive, or is it more important for competition for everyone, big and small, to have the same opportunities?
Overall, I tend to agree with Wu’s arguments more, simply because I find it important for everyone to have equal access to the Internet. Although proponents of non-network neutrality argue that the Internet Service Providers will not unreasonably discriminate or block sites that are competitors, the example on the CNN video about the bread at the supermarket is valid. If they have the power to decide what traffic they deliver to the Internet user, who is to say that this is not an issue that will arise? The situation of Comcast blocking the P2P site, BitTorrent, because it was slowing down the rest of the network is a good example of this. The FCC’s regulation seem to ensure the “mom and pop” companies the same opportunities as more frequently visited sites, which makes me as a user feel secure that I am not browsing a slanted Internet.
I believe there are clear differences in wired and wireless broadband. To me, the main difference is that when people purchase smart phones, etc. that use wireless broadband and “apps,” they are aware of the offerings of the company that they are signing a contract with. Another difference is that 3G/4G networks have a limited amount of bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum, whereas wired broadband can install a thicker wire. These differences and others are highlighted and argued in a blog post here: http://suffolkmedialaw.com/2010/08/18/why-should-wireless-be-different-from-wired-answer-because-it-already-was/.
I feel that both arguments have valid points. For instance, in Yoo’s argument he is looking at the net neutrality from the fortune 500 companies standpoint, which basically is showing that they will have more control of the market as far as allowing the company with more money to have their advertisements and products be accessed faster than others. On the positive side though if the FCC denies net neutrality then this will allow these telecom and cable companies to be governing some of the material that does float around the net and into the consumers homes. There just would need to be some restrictions as to them allowing their affiliates to take priority over the competitors.
Wu’s argument has some good points from the fair practice side. For example there should not be a gatekeeper regulating what and who can send information quicker than one another, because that is restricting our freedom as users. He also argues that the fortune 500 companies that would have the most power in the market would also slow or limits the innovation process. They should not be able to do that to smaller companies that have brilliant ideas but are threatening to the multi-billion dollar companies that would turn into competitors. That is a monopoly if you ask me.
Either way I think there should be a higher up controlling and regulating the speeds and type of material that is being sent through the internet, but to agree with both Wu and Yoo, there should be no priority according to which company pays more. That is like saying that SYSCO foods can drive faster on the highway as opposed to the local food distributer just because SYSCO is a wealthier company.
My opinion on the FCC not restricting the wireless companies as opposed to restricting the DSL/cable companies is outrageous. The wireless companies are pushing and promoting a lot of the same exact products and services. If they are going to limit and restrict the DSL/cable companies then they should restrict all internet providers even if they are wireless.
By not restricting the wireless broadband services they are going to eventually shut the DSL/cable companies down in my opinion. If the FCC is trying to restrict and block what is being sent through the internet then I feel that they would also need to restrict the wireless companies as well. This would make it fair to every company and provide equal opportunity to all.
Jennifer L. Newton
There are many valid points given by both sides of the argument. Network neutrality really doesn’t have to be a negative move. There should be a certain degree of network neutrality placed on the Internet. The core of network neutrality includes three main parts: transparency, no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination. As long as these 3 parts of the law is enforced, this law could be a good thing. I believe that everyone should be treated equally when it comes to downloading and surfing the network, whether it be wireless, broadband or dsl. Applications and other content should also be equally distributed. By not discriminating, you allow good and bad content to surface and travel the web. I also agree with the FCC for its attempt to stop malware and negative content from being in network traffic.
Christopher Yoo said that he is not convinced that deviations from network neutrality will necessarily harm consumers and innovation. Yoo made many valid points in regards to the topic. He also talked about how competition and innovation might be better if policy makers actually embraced a “network diversity” principles that allows different networks to pursue different approaches to routing traffic. I agree with his opinion completely. I think an equal playing field will open the doors for smaller companies to advance. Demands imposed by end users are attempted to be satisfied by network owners with this network neutrality clause. With the non discrimination clause, there would be no higher priority given to high traffic time-sensitive applications.
Timothy Wu also made many valid points. He views network neutrality as another way of showing discrimination. He says that discrimination is never completely eliminated from any environment, whether it be online networks, applications or job environment. I believe that the FCC new rules are going to be good for services providers and networks in the long run.
I cannot completely say that I agree with specifically one of the professors over the other because I do believe that they both make very strong and compelling points. The video that CNN had posted about the neutrality of these networks was quite interesting. Many people have been complaining of certain internet service providers that have been running very slow but if there could be different tunnels for the internet service providers to utilize for their web content then it would allow much quicker access for their end users. I have seen the change in the speed of internet. I currently have BrightHouse and although it may have its moments, it runs much smoother than years ago when I had Comcast. The downfall to this is that certain sites that have a lot of people that go onto it—such as YouTube, NetFlix, etx—would be a bit more of a hassle to allow through this tunnel if they begin to block some of these tunnels. I work for AT&T and sometimes we get calls from Verizon customers—I don’t know why—who complain about how slow their internet access it and how their internet service providers are blocking some of their connection ports. This is something that can become very frustrating to customers that are frequent travelers. Usually people who are on business trips and need to access their company’s internal devices or even just normal web browsing and certain sites will be blocked by their internet service provider.
Network neutrality is something that I had never heard of before this blog. Upon reading the CNN article, I was shocked that this was even an issue. As I went on, and especially after reading the debate, I understood the controversy involved in network neutrality. Although Yoo’s argument is very strong, I share Wu’s opinion and agree with network neutrality.
The internet is incredibly valuable in today’s society, and most definitely in the United States. The internet is one of very few, if not the only, source of media that is unbiased and all-inclusive. What I mean by unbiased and all-inclusive is that the internet gives you the ability to access everything that has ever been published online. Unlike television or radio, the internet allows you to choose what you want to view—it doesn’t give you a few options, but rather puts all of its content at your fingertips.
It seems to me that Yoo is looking at the issue through the eyes of corporate America, whereas Wu is looking at the issue through the eyes of Americans. As a citizen who owns no business, I side with Wu, though I cannot discredit Yoo’s argument. How would small websites survive in a non-neutral internet world? Imagine a new small restaurant that creates a website to help market itself. Blocking that website wouldn’t cause a riot or maybe not even a complaint, but a service provider would never even consider blocking a website like Facebook. The weak would perish, and the strong would prosper.
These new regulations are very foreign to us. We must remember that the internet itself is fairly young, especially when compared to other means of communication. Wireless broadband is even newer, and that’s why I believe the regulations don’t apply to this medium. Also, there are much fewer users of wireless than there are of wired broadband so the argument against network neutrality would be much weaker. However, I don’t believe wireless broadband should be excluded from this regulation, and I am sure that the need to regulate it will come in time.
I found the following website useful when looking into this topic. The website even includes other publication on network neutrality by both Yoo and Wu: http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html. I do believe there is a happy middle ground in regulating network neutrality. I believe that the regulations already put into place are far too extreme and should express limits rather than forbiddance.
I must admit, I had some trouble understanding the debate even after reviewing the blog materials. Overall, what I took from the resources is that network neutrality basically describes the freedom given to internet users to consume whatever content they choose. Additionally, Internet Service Providers are regulated by the FCC so that they must offer equal access to internet content – whether it be music, video or text – to users. Eliminating such regulation would mean that Internet Service Providers could offer non-neutral Internet connections to their subscribers – i.e. limit which of their subscribers receive what kind of content. At first glance, it seemed to me that this was a clear attack on the freedom of the internet, but Yoo brings up makes some interesting arguments in terms of protecting the stability of the internet. I’ll take him at his word when he writes that eliminating net neutrality will actually decongest the internet and will allow Internet Service Providers to offer different types of networks altogether. Still, I can’t help but side with Wu on the issue. He points out that limiting internet freedom may also limit innovation in this country. I agree with his statement: “The risk, as I’ve said elsewhere, is a market where several large companies set the pace of innovation, not the challenges of competitors. But historically—and by current economic theory—the many beat out the few.”
Dominique Benjamin
I have not heard of network neutrality before this assignment either. I always assumed each ISP just did the same thing, some better than others, some at a better price than others. At this moment in time, I definitely support network neutrality, considering FCC’s rules: transparency, no blocking, no unreasonable discrimination.
I say “this point in time” because I currently live in, and will live in next year, a “student living community.” These communities are all inclusive, meaning it includes internet service. Although Yoo makes a good point, “For example, deviating from network neutrality might make it possible for three last-mile networks to coexist: one optimized for traditional Internet applications, such as e-mail and website access; a second incorporating security features to facilitate e-commerce; and a third that facilitates time-sensitive applications such as streaming media and Internet telephony,” by living in these all inclusive communities, I would not have the opportunity to choice a service provider that provides what I actually want. Thus causing me to choose a place to live based not only on quality, but which ISP they use, or be forced to purchase my own internet service despite the fact I am already paying for an ISP. This would complicate things way too much for my taste.
In the future, I think I might like being able to choose a provider based on what they do better. In theory, going with a non-discriminatory provider would allow me to access everything at “average” speeds, but with one that discriminates, I could get one that puts “time-sensitive applications” before another service I don’t use often. But, both Yoo and Wu make good arguments. If anything, I believe transparency is most important. If providers do start blocking things and making certain services a priority, I would want to know exactly the details about this.
This is an incredibly complex issue to side with. While reading Yoo’s arguments, about why we shouldn’t have network neutrality, he makes very valid points. For instance, that internet service providers may simply be trying to accommodate the high influx of users or sites that require a lot of bandwidth, such as YouTube and Netflix. If network neutrality was being enforced in this situation and I was trying to watch an instant movie on Netflix, I’d be extremely frustrated and upset with how slow it would take for the movie to load.
On the other hand, if AT&T were to block Netflix all together due to it jamming the “pipe” and coincidentally have a streaming movie service similar to Netflix, I would be outraged! Ultimately, I side with the FCC’s attempt to regulate this, especially after reading Wu’s counter-arguments and watching the CNN video because I’d much rather deal with having a slower website loading time than having no access to the website at all. And I refuse to pay extra for access to higher-traffic or higher-content sites because it’s expensive enough as it is!
However, I do believe that a happy middle can be achieved. Perhaps the FCC can permit internet service providers to allocate more bandwidth to websites that need it to function or load at a timely rate, so long as they don’t completely block the site and are clearly not discriminating against competitors. I’m not sure if the latter half if this condition is measurable, but it’s worth a shot.
With regards to wireless, I can see why regulation would be more lax. As it is, cell phone internet isn’t very fast, nor is it nearly as fast as wired service. I’ve experienced and understand the need to have the ability to allocate bandwidth to websites and apps in this situation because it would take forever for phones to load websites if they were all neutral. We need to have all the efficiency in this situation in order to make the experience bearable. But I still don’t think wireless service providers should have the right to completely block or charge extra for these types of websites and apps.
This is an incredibly complex issue to side with. While reading Yoo’s arguments, about why we shouldn’t have network neutrality, he makes very valid points. For instance, that internet service providers may simply be trying to accommodate the high influx of users or sites that require a lot of bandwidth, such as YouTube and Netflix. If network neutrality was being enforced in this situation and I was trying to watch an instant movie on Netflix, I’d be extremely frustrated and upset with how slow it would take for the movie to load.
On the other hand, if AT&T were to block Netflix all together due to it jamming the “pipe” and coincidentally have a streaming movie service similar to Netflix, I would be outraged! Ultimately, I side with the FCC’s attempt to regulate this, especially after reading Wu’s counter-arguments and watching the CNN video because I’d much rather deal with having a slower website loading time than having no access to the website at all. And I refuse to pay extra for access to higher-traffic or higher-content sites because it’s expensive enough as it is!
However, I do believe that a happy middle can be achieved. Perhaps the FCC can permit internet service providers to allocate more bandwidth to websites that need it to function or load at a timely rate, so long as they don’t completely block the site and are clearly not discriminating against competitors. I’m not sure if the latter half if this condition is measurable, but it’s worth a shot.
With regards to wireless, I can see why regulation would be more lax. As it is, cell phone internet isn’t very fast, nor is it nearly as fast as wired service. I’ve experienced and understand the need to have the ability to allocate bandwidth to websites and apps in this situation because it would take forever for phones to load websites if they were all neutral. We need to have all the efficiency in this situation in order to make the experience bearable. But I still don’t think wireless service providers should have the right to completely block or charge extra for these types of websites and apps.
I have not heard of network neutrality until this assignment. I was not aware that it existed and had not noticed a difference in the way my internet works. CNN did a good job of explain exactly what this Network Neutrality meant. I am still not sure exactly where I stand on the issue.
Everyone uses the internet, and for most of us it takes up about half or our day. There is a lot of traffic on the internet and there needs to be some way to control/maintain this massive overload of information. But the network neutrality rules scares some American’s (obviously because this is a huge debate) because it makes them feel like things may be taken away from them.
I agree with Ryan Sauer in that there are “Three aspects to net neutrality that are important to understand and familiarize oneself with are transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination.”
I think that large companies are already making a lot of money for being internet service providers and I think it would be wrong for them to ask for more money in order for us to use certain sites or to slow down our bandwidth speed at their control. I agree with Professor Yoo from Vanderbuilt University in that network neutrality will help with the congestion of certain high traffic sites. But as Professor Wu says, there would be too much temptation to block or over price sites. It could also cause companies to change their business models, and even monopolize the category and not give enough advantage to smaller corporations.
Both arguments presented bring up very valid points on the issue of network neutrality. I believe that Yoo presents a concerning argument about bandwidth. At some point or another, when will too much bandwidth become too much and when will we run out of it. By taking Yoo’s point about simply attempting to provide more bandwidth for consumers of a particular network, it seems logical that it may be the answer to some congestion that the internet receives on a second by second basis.
However, I tend to agree more with the FCC’s attempt to regulate this issue because of the fact that it absolutely limits the access a consumer has to various pages and content. I would be extremely unhappy if I were trying to access a particular web page , search engine, etc. and could not obtain it because of the “blockage” that my provider has. I think in certain instances such as pornography or obscene material, the network could and should have a say in those circumstances.
In regards to the financial state of networks, I think by charging extra to access sites that require higher bandwidth is absolutely outrageous. With the given times of the economy, it would be a great disservice to the people of our nation to charge extra for content that they should be able to access for free. In my opinion, that gives WAY too much control and not enough power to the consumer.
Network neutrality is an extremely important issue that affects our everyday internet usage. I believe that keeping the FCC standard of network neutrality is key for innovation in the United States. Allowing ISP companies to control the speed and flow of traffic is ridiculous. I will comment on both the CNN video and the argument between the professors.
The CNN video broke down what net neutrality is and the argument over why or why it shouldn’t be regulated. Ali explains both sides of the argument. For the argument for net neutrality, content providers could limit access to competing sites and companies giving them too much power. For the argument against net neutrality, content providers say that if you are using services that require such high bandwidth, you should have to pay a premium for those services. Ali uses a visual example of a large pipe versus a small pipe. What I don’t understand is, don’t we already have a price mechanism for dealing with this very problem? I am a user of Netflix, Hulu, and other high bandwidth sites and my ISP is Verizon. I can’t simply call Verizon and go down to their cheapest lite internet speed for $20 a month because I would only get .5 – 1.0 mbps, not nearly enough to stream the content that I want. So rather, I pay for the premium Fios internet speed of 20 mbps which costs me closer to $100. I’m happy with the content I enjoy and Verizon is happy with their extra $80. I don’t see the valid argument of the ISP company that I should have to pay more for Netflix services or that Netflix should pass the cost on to me. I do see however the other side of the argument, that this would severely hamper innovation and low entry cost to the market that the internet and tech sector currently enjoy. How would Facebook have been created if Mark Zuckerburg had to shell out millions of dollars to support his first million users and the bandwidth that they were using, or better yet YouTube? The problem with abolishing net neutrality is that you put far too much power in the hands of a few companies providing the highways for the information.
In the blog post presented, both professor Yoo and Wu bring up valid points about net neutrality and the implications. I side with Wu in thinking that the overall damage of discrimination such as blockage is far more detrimental to our society as a whole vs. the way net neutrality offers an even playing field today. We have always had a tradition and a culture in America that large companies should not be able to have absolute control over infrastructure when the livelihood of all Americans are impacted by it, for example when phone companies were forced to allow other providers to use their telephone lines.
For the most part, I am a free market kind of guy, but there are certain regulations I back. Net neutrality has done so much more good than bad in the short history of the internet. I think that allowing ISP companies to discriminate would be a huge misstep by the FCC. They already have ways of pricing in high bandwidth usage directly to the consumer, they make plenty of money and their stock prices and company valuations show that.
After reading the debate between Wu and Yoo, glossing over various sources regarding net neutrality, I have come to the conclusion that not only do I agree with Wu, but truly I believe that any sort of reduction of the power the FCC has to enforce net neutrality would result in grave consequences for innovation, consumers, and people like me.
Wu and Yoo discuss two sides of the same coin: innovation, and whose hands to put it in, whether that be the big ISP or the content makers, web designers, and home-grown innovators. I am firmly on the side of Wu. Yoo argues that if ISP’s were given freedom to begin changing their standard TCP/IP protocols, and were free to start favoring some sites over others, new companies may spring up willing to pay for preferential treatment (in this case, first priority in speed and throughput) and offer groundbreaking services. Wu postulates that if ISPs were given the opportunity to control how they provide their content, new companies, and business deals may be made, like Akamai, which speeds up certain internet protocols, or signing exclusivity contracts with major websites.
While Yoo’s argument may make sense in an abstract fashion, giving these large mult-national ISP’s the power to regulate what websites they offer and how fast they load will not, in my opinion, foster innovation, even at a snail’s pace. Just like Wu predicts, this freedom would eventually devolve into the ISP’s simply eliminating their competition, like VOIP, which offers a much more attractive deal than say, Verizon’s land-line service.
GIven that control, ISPs may take what was once a given, being able to choose between using Google or Yahoo, and force you to use Yahoo as they signed some sort of agreement that will make it the only speedy search engine online.
A very basic tenant of this country’s ISP infrastructure is neglected by Yoo in that in some parts of the country, only one ISP exists, and if it is the sole provider of content, the users in that cursed part of the country may be subject to Netflix blackouts or Google throttling, with no other recourse.
In short, given the choice between true innovation or a stale, yet stable business model, these massive corporations will always choose the path of least risk: the one that does not include innovation.
If net neutrality is protected, so is online innovation. The freedom that is currently offered on the internet is unparalleled, and paramount to the success of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerberg, and others who simply have nothing to lose from experimenting on a free and open internet. Start making restrictions on that freedom, and you will witness the same restriction on the very heartbeat of our economy.
On a personal level, the effect of net neutrality on me personally will go unnoticed if it is executed properly. At its current state, it prohibits ISPs from throttling my connection to any particular site, and if they do wish to throttle my connection, they must do so in a blanket and content neutral manner. I have no problem with this, so long as ISPs cannot ever block a particular site.
On mobile devices, I believe net neutrality is also important as it should protect application developers rights to sell their mobile applications in a free and open marketplace. With regards to mobile internet streaming, I whole heartedly disagree with specific service blockage like Netflix mobile or Pandora Mobile. If I pay for Unlimited Data, that’s exactly what I should be receiving. Unlimited Data at a constant rate. If mobile carriers have a problem with that, then they either need to raise the price of unlimited data or not offer it. I am an active consumer and will not tolerate bait and switch maneuvers.
In short net neutrality is incredibly vital to the lifeblood of our internet. Without it, we all will be at the whim of the board of directors for Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and other ISPs.
Being a big Internet user, network neutrality is something that I have tried to keep informed on, but I wasn’t fully aware of everything that net neutrality entailed. After reading both “FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Take Effect Nov. 20” and “What Do the FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Mean for You?” from PCMag.com, I think I understand net neutrality much more than I once did.
“FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Take Effect Nov. 20” talks about the basics of net neutrality and why the FCC is having problems getting their new rules finalized. The FCC actually approved the rules for net neutrality back in December 2010, and as of September 2011 when this story was written, the rules had not been put into effect because the commission was taking its time on publishing them officially. After the rules were decided on Verizon and MetroPCS, two internet providers, sued and argued that the FCC did not have the authority to make the changes they were announcing. Negative views from providers and other sources seem to be causing the hold up on the FCC officially publishing the new rules.
“What Do the FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Mean for You?” breaks down the different parts of net neutrality and explains how it will effect the average internet user. The three main parts of net neutrality begins with transparency, which means that ISPs will have to be transparent about how they manage their networks, how their networks perform, and details on their pricing and options. Under the new rules, ISPs would not be able to pick and choose services or websites to block in order to improve their network’s performance. And finally, the new rules would not allow ISPs unreasonably discriminate against specific applications, such as BitTorrent or Netflix.
The video from CNN’s Ali Velshi, “Net Neutrality 101,” gave the most information on the subject and helped illustrate these new rules in the best ways. I believe that net neutrality is a good thing, it’s about making the Internet available to everyone equally, without bias or discrimination, and without the fear of ISPs getting too powerful and charging internet users more for the things they have now.
The year is 2022. You want to watch a Retro TV Show. So you plop down on your couch and as soon as you do the television comes to life without ever saying a voice command or performing a touch gesture (that’s because every television manufacture bought a license to utilize Microsoft Kinect’s people sensing technology). As the gigantic, crystal clear TV comes to life, you are met with the most minimalistic menu you have ever seen: just gigantic buttons: one that says BROWSE and one that says SEARCH. You flip over to search and start typing with your smartphone connected via Wifi to your TV Set: Mia—, and before you can finish the —mi Vice the TV Menu already has an easy-to-read menu crawling with episodes of Miami Vice. You swipe gesture down to Miami Vice: Season Three and it starts to play. Immediately.
What a citizen of 2012 must think is that this gentlemen is rocking some sort of Netflix on steroids, and yes that could be the case, Netflix could become so dominant that it becomes the de-facto choice in TV Service Providers, streamed completely with 1080p (now simply STANDARD video quality) via a fiber-optic connection provided by Verizon or Comcast.
What I want to emphasize is that Comcast or Verizon, if they are extraordinarily innovative, may adopt this platform of content providing as well. It would mean, however, a radical shift in the way they do business and offer their services.
First off, whether or not your TV Shows are coming from Netflix or Comcast, EVERYTHING, READ: EVERYTHING is on demand. New seasons of TV Shows are heavily marketed like they are now but they are simply dumped into the bank of searchable, immediately viewable television shows. This of course means a dramatic shift in the way all content providers do business. They CHOSE the on-demand platform for one reason: increasing competition. Increasing competition from the ever more powerful on-demand services like Netflix and Hulu-Plus, competition from DVRs allowing viewers to simply skip commercials, and competition from online pirating. Their only solution was to beat the piraters at their own game: simply offering EVERYTHING, the entire kit and ka-bootable, all shows from all ‘channels’ instantly available to watch whenever a viewer wishes (so long as the providers have the rights to the TV show, of course.)
This dramatic change also meant another dramatic change in the pricing tiers for subscribers. Instead of charging subscribers for the amount of channels they want, they instead decided to move over to a pricing tier much more similar to phone contracts. That’s right, you sign up for a ‘number’ of single viewings of shows per month, the bargain basement is about one TV Show a day, 30 single video views, or a bigger 75 single video views a month, or a very pricey unlimited option that lets everyone view as many as they wish.
The goal of on-demand video adoption was to make DVR’s and Pirating Obsolete, and maintain that precious advertising revenue stream. Now Content Providers REQUIRE 4 Commercials viewings per commercial break, no DVR’s allowed. But if it is no commercials you want, and you are more than willing to pay for it, be prepared to pay for it through the nose.
I believe these changes will happen in the industry so long as major Cable Companies like Comcast and Verizon are willing to innovate and take chances to combat piracy in a positive and lucrative way. That was the best case scenario. The worst case is that online services like Netflix become rulers of the roost, (so-long as anti-net-neutrality legislation doesn’t throttle the service out of existence), piracy remains rampant (unless Cable Companies and Hollywood pass more severe bits of legislation like SOPA and CISPA to legally choke online piracy to death), and more people choose to watch television straight from their computers, which, by then will already be hooked up to large High-Definition monitors.
In short, the future of television is reliant on whether major content providers like Comcast and Verizon are willing to innovate to rise above and beyond what the competition provides or whether they will support draconian legislation that favors only their own business practices in order to ‘play it safe’. Because after all, the major goal of a Cable Company isn’t to provide incredible content in an exciting new way, but rather, to make a serious profit. The future of television viewing, in my opinion, is in the hands of the major players and Corporate Cable America and Hollywood.
Fortunately, the differentflavors are not harmful
to the environment, then you can just use these as electronic cigarete forums an alternative to a real cigarette.
Then there is the electronic cigarette forums Smokebot electronic cigarettes.
The electronic cigarette, you don t smoke you may wonder,
what is an electronic cigarette kit.