The current conversation behind Net Neutrality began in 2006 when a crucial telecommunications bill failed to pass. The bill was unsuccessful due to the fact that it did not include a guarantee to the principle that Internet service providers should give access to all content and applications disregarding the source, and without blocking, censoring, or favoriting particular products or websites (Net Neutrality). On one side of the spectrum, those who favored net neutrality included interests from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Consumers Union,the American Electronics Association, the Communications Workers of America, Internet businesses such as Google and Amazon, and various other actors. On the other side, “the opposing coalition …show more content…
The growing popularity of the Internet raised the question as to why communications services were regulated federally as common carriers and not the Internet. Being a common carrier “guaranteed that no one could be denied access to vital communications and transportation infrastructures” (Hart). This principal plays into how Internet service providers should disregard the source of specific content or applications and provide equal service and not favor one site over another. Additionally, communication services regulations were also “made to assure that as many people as possible would have access to the telephone network despite the high costs of connecting people in remote locations in the form of “universal service” provisions of the law” (Mueller). Therefore, Internet providers should provide uniform coverage, not slowing Internet speeds or upcharging in regards to Internet access. The argument that the lawful ability to reach content and services should be unrestricted plays into this …show more content…
Professor of law at Harvard, Lawrence Lessig, claims, “this is the simple but brilliant ‘end-to-end’ design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good” (Lessig & McChesney, 2006). There, the assertion that regulating net neutrality would lead to economic and social good is made here. However, an opposing argument from the U.S. Internet Industry Association remarks, “ Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem” (U.S. Internet Industry Association, 2006). This side of the argument remarks that the concept of net neutrality is too vague in regards to its definition. In addition, under net neutrality obligations, prioritization of all information is treated as equal to others. This is where the term urgency of delivery is key, rationalizing how specific information should take priority, such as professor of law at Georgetown University, Gregory Sidaks’ example where he testified in opposition to net neutrality at a Senate Committee. He sarcastically states, “under “net neutrality” I can take comfort in knowing that my son’s Internet chatting about what agent Jack Bauer did on last night’s episode of 24 will receive the same