PART ONE: Telecommunications Regulation
1) The Electronic Frontier Foundation
2) (EFF) is concerned with the issue of net neutrality. Netneutrality refers to the rule that internet service providers mustallow access to all material, as well as applications despite thesource, and with no favor or blocking specific websites.
a) EFF strongly backs the rule that internet service providers musthandle all data, which travels over their network fairly.
b) EFF argues that the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) is contemplating a plan, which may permit some internet serviceproviders (ISP) to avail enhanced admittance to selected websites,which pay an amount to reach users fast (2014). The type of‘pay-to-play’ net neutrality suppresses innovation. Adventwebsites incapable of affording costly fees for improved service willencounter restrictions to triumph, leaving users with limitedalternatives and a less varied internet. EFF progresses to argue thatthere are numerous manners ISPs might single out against the methodof accessing websites thus, remaining steadfast in refutation ofsuch conduct.
Illustrations provided are the 2007 case where Comcast was exposeddue to interference with their clients’ application of BitTorrentas well as differing peer-to-peer file exchange. According to EFF(2014), there has been discriminative traffic molding, where someprotocols are given more priority. Such behaviors pose a peril to theinnovative engine, which has permitted hackers, startup organizationsand college going students to invent the internet. EFF asserts thatFCC has a wanting record of effectively ensuring net neutrality.Safeguarding net neutrality is a difficult challenge, withoutapparent resolutions.
Contrary, the FCC argue that their proposal, which for the initialtime will provide the group restrictive power on how internet trafficmoves amid content providers and organizations, availing internetservice to clients, could be effective in ensuring net neutrality(Wyatt, 2014). FCC notes that similar to probable solutions, theproposal endeavors at reestablishing FCC’s power in enforcing netneutrality.
1) Public Knowledge
2) The group is involved in the cable giveaway approach, which is aversion of the STELA Reauthorization bill (Shiva, 2014). Enacting thebill is alleged to fail in safeguarding customers who will have topay higher cable fees.
a) The group supports the rejection of the cable giveaway approach.
b) The House of Representatives enacted satellite law, which entailsa cable giveaway that Public Knowledge, claims to harm theset-top box market via voice voting (Shiva, 2014). Although the groupsupports Congress’ move in ensuring that satellite clients do notlose service, they argue that the STELA Reauthorization billcomprises a stipulation influenced by Comcast and the cable market,which may jeopardize the set-top box industry, limiting customerchoice for individuals that do not subscribe to satellite.
The STELA Act is the advent House complement to Senate’s STAVRAbill, comprising a stipulation, which may increase cable prices,minimize customer choices as well as obstruct video originality. Itis for these reasons that Public Knowledge endorses the Senateto refute the cable giveaway approach (Shiva, 2014). The groupencourages in place of the approach, adoption of the Markey revisionthat upholds the possibility for competition in the set-top boxindustry, in addition to customer choice. The bill does away withconsumer safeguards with no implementation of advent safety net inplace. It simply implies that enacting the bill will bedisadvantageous for any individual that is not Comcast.
Contrary, in support of the bill by the National Association ofBroadcasters is the argument that it does not impede on consumerprotection. NAB also argues that consumers will not experience anyextra charges. Instead, the Act is supposed to assist in availingcontinued accessibility of local news, as well as broadcast servicesto individuals in rural areas.
PART TWO: Article Summary
The article questions why the Federal Communications Commissionplaces a competitive broadband service back to legacy telephonerestrictions (Cooper, 2014). This has happened, despite the move fromlegacy telephone services towards inclusive internet protocolnetworks. FCC has singled out CenturyLink’s broadband for legacyrestrictions (Cooper, 2014). The FCC has previously engaged thepublic in a proposal to ensure the services remain under the rule ofprevious century telephone restrictions. However, these results inthe realization that communication stipulations need to mirrortechnological developments, as well as competitive marketactualities. It is only the management of the stipulations, whichshould meticulously evade differential treatment of industryparticipants. This results in the conclusion that FCC’s proposalhas been unsuccessful on both accounts.
The enterprise broadband industry is greatly competitive with nooverriding carriers. Its services provide high data speed andcapacity abilities via Ethernet, as well as differing Ip-enabledtechnologies (Cooper, 2014). The services are on demand fromenterprise clients with exceptional information technology andcommunication wants. Enterprise broadband clients arecharacteristically complicated and knowledgeable, seeking customoffers and bargain with providers. There are numerous providers ofthe broadband, which makes it apparent that there is no proof todepict CenturyLink has market authority. Competitors include Cox andcharter communications, AT&T, Comcast and Frontier communicationsamong others. Hence, the FCC epitomizes arbitrariness as well asunreliability by progressing to differentiate CenturyLink.
Cooper, S. (2014). CenturyLink: An Unfortunate Legacy. MultichannelNews, 35(29), 31.
Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF. (2014). Net Neutrality.Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
Shiva, S. (2014). Public Knowledge urges Senate to reject House’sCable Giveaway. Public Knowledge. Retrieved fromhttps://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public- knowledge-urges-senate-to-reject-houses-cable-giveaway
Wyatt, E. (2014). FCC Considering Hybrid Regulatory Approach to NetNeutrality. The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/technology/fcc- considering-hybrid-regulatory-approach-to-net-neutrality.html?_r=2