When starting out the article, Smith begins by building up the idea and argument of net neutrality. He uses rhetorical questions, giving his audience the ability to begin building up their own opinion
In Network Neutrality Nuances, David Farber makes a contrasting counterpoint to Barbara van Schewick’s piece of net neutrality protecting us from abuse from our ISPs. Farber states that because the internet has always regulated itself over the course of its nature and is continuing to grow increasingly with no issues, we should continue to let the internet self-regulate. Thus David Farber is suggesting that the government and legislators take a reactive stance on the internet because over the course of the internet’s history it has shown to be growing exponentially. Farber continues to analyze the history of net neutrality and comes to the conclusion that any legislation that attempts to manage the internet will fail due to the incompetence of legislations regarding the internet as demonstrated by history. Farber attempts to inductively explain the pretense behind the legislations against net neutrality; however some of his examples ultimately fail to support his conclusion due to his very apparent position against legislators
Net neutrality has been a big topic in recent news headlines. While many people are in favor of net neutrality author Peter Gregory believes it is a form of socialism. In Peter Gregory's review, he displays his ideal future without net neutrality, and what are, in his eyes, the problems with it. Although the biased author was able to give the reader insight to their side of the argument with specific examples as to why they think their views on net neutrality would be non-beneficial, he may have botched his attempt to persuade the opposing side by using too many pathos fallacies and logos based appeals to undermine the counter argument. It is Gregory's opinion that net neutrality is a form of " techno socialism.
With the world population being 7,259,902,243 people, a grossly huge amount of people use the Internet, the number being 3,366,261,156 people worldwide. That ends up being almost half of the population, the percentage being 46.4% I one hundred percent disagree with the “decision” of the government ridding of the Internet entirely, as if that isn't clear enough already. Though the government might find the termination of the Internet useful in some circumstances, I have no doubt that it may result in riots, violence, protests, and more in order to get it
Shant Sahakian, in the informative and opinionated piece, “Repeal of Net Neutrality is bad for Education, Business, and You,” written in Los Angeles Times, on November 30, 2017, argues that repealing, therefore ending net neutrality would be detrimental and “the end of the internet we have always known and loved”, and that ending net neutrality will be bad for education, business, and anyone who believes that the internet should be free and equal to use by all persons who use it today. Sahakian’s evidence consists of various references and indications to the fact that ending net neutrality will be the end to internet freedom and equality as wells as an end to the fairness and equal opportunity that net neutrality gives us today. Sahakian also
"As most who will read this have already heard, net neutrality has been under fire lately. Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai has come under a lot of fire along with it. His opinion on the subject has shown to be quite controversial to the people of the United States. As usual in situations such as this where our constitutional rights are attacked, the people are trying to fight back against this. Protests, blog posts, speeches, etc.
By now, you have probably heard about the Federal Communication Commission's, also known as the FCC, ruling on the Open Internet rules, but do you know what it means for you? The ruling is important to understand because it encompasses everyone who uses the internet and details the rights those users have. The ruling covers what internet service providers, what you can do, and what the FCC can do and required 400 pages of legal document to cover every avenue that could possibly be attacked in hopes to keep what we see as the internet today as what it will look like ten years from now. This essay will cover a few of the main rulings on the FCC decision of the Open Internet rules: an explanation of some rules, how they apply to consumers by using past examples, arguments against the Open Internet rules, critical responses to those arguments, and what will be ahead for the FCC.
On December 14, 2017 the F.C.C., the Federal Communications Commission, voted 3-2 in favor of repealing Net Neutrality laws set in March 12, 2015 made by the F.C.C. under President Obama’s administration. This decision reversed the laws that prevented broadband companies from favoring one kind of content over another, and the regulations reclassified the internet as a telecommunications service, thus putting the internet under regulations of Title II of the Communications Act. However, with the F.C.C.’s ruling the internet is no longer under these regulations, and the regulations will be lifted on April 23, 2018. This decision from the F.C.C. was largely controversial as it was a polarizing political decision with the GOP supporting the repeal
ObamaCare known as the “Patient Protection” (PPACA) and “Affordable Care Act (ACA)” were signed into the law by President Barack Obama on March 23rd, 2010. ObamaCare is paid through collected taxes, penalties, spending cuts and reformations to the health care industry. All of the money is used to fund the program and subsidized health insurance to improve Medicare, and expands Medicaid. ObamaCare is a positive impact for Americans. It will help many uninsured Americans have access to affordable, quality health insurance, and offers new benefits, rights and protections to their healthcare.
The Affordable Health Care Act, also known as “Obamacare”, is basically just Obama trying to make sure that the whole nation has insurance and if they do not have it by January 1, 2014, they will be penalized with a fine. To make insurance more affordable, many Americans are able to qualify for a subsidy that lowers the cost depending on age and income. Also, “Obamacare” made it impossible for insurers’ to discriminate, or charge higher rates, for anyone who has pre-existing conditions or for a certain gender. Medicare will also be easier to obtain due to requirement of insurance. This law was passed in the U.S. on March 23, 2010 by Congress and President Barack Obama.
Twitter data shows that the minority of people are tweeting about protecting #TitleII of the Communications Act, and the majority are tweeting about protecting #NetNeutrality. The third, and more neutral argument, suggests that the FCC should repeal the strong Title II regulation, but stay in support of Net Neutrality by reverting to Title I instead. A very limited number of people meet in the middle on both extremities, acknowledging that Title II does protect from ISPs being able to throttle and block certain websites; however, they also claim that the strong regulations have negative effects on consumers and competition as well. These problems could be remedied by a revision to the current Title II law. Out of the twenty-four consumer tweets gathered, only two had a similar outlook on the issue to this one.
I believe The Affordable Healthcare act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is no good for America. Insurance premiums are on the rise, people who can’t afford healthcare are being penalized for not having it, and the regulations within the healthcare act are forcing people to purchase a product they do not want or need. Conceptually Obamacare seems to be the ideal solution to the skyrocketing costs of health care. This is due to the fact that Obamacare offers “cost assistance and affordable premiums through the health insurance marketplace” and various other benefits as the upcounsel website explains it. According to an article written by Tyler Durden, it’s quite the opposite.
Comments: 1. In this video, the main problems that international students face in Canada are cultural differences, unfamiliar educational systems, tuition, and rental fees. 2. I think it is a good strategy to provide peer mentors for international students.
During 2017-2018, net neutrality was the talk around America. Many high profiled people wanted to control what can be place on the internet and place a price on it as well. Controlling the internet can mean them sending political and brainwashing messages that we will have no concern of. There are already messages being sent but having complete and utter control is a step closer on controlling our lives. A large percentage of the population is using the internet.
Freedom of Speech Freedom of speech is the freedom all people have, to express what they consider and express any opinions. It is an ability to express our opinions freely without being punished or censored. All people throughout the world are entitled and must have right to freedom of speech. However, how much do we know about freedom of speech: when did it occur? Does every countries have it?
