Fight for the Future and Net Neutrality

Fight for the Future and Net Neutrality:

A Case Study in the Origins, Evolution,
and Activities of Internet Service Providers
Case Study Report

Zachary Standridge

January, 2019
Report to Professor Spangler, Middle Georgia State University
School of Information Technology,

Case Study Report – MGA 2019 1

Fight for the Future and Net Neutrality

Executive Summary
The internet has grown beyond the scope of the Advanced Research Projects Agency
Network where it began. The internet is now in almost every home, in everyday devices, and
walking around with people on their communication devices. When it reached a point of
being needed in life, what is to stop institutions from regulating and making rules for the
future of the internet. Net Neutrality was just that set of rules. People want to change them for
an easier life just as much as people want to change them for making money restricting the
use of the internet. This paper will offer some suggestions and examples of each.
Introduction
We Americans have a fight going on when it comes to the repeal of net neutrality rules which
prevent the Internet Service Providers (IPS) from blocking websites, internet content, and the
possible demanding of higher access fees to reach consumers. (FCC, 2015) The repeal of net
neutrality has been the spark which started many teens, young adults, and adults to put their
energies into politics for the first time. (Boyd, 2007) With fears that the removal of the rules
could allow ISPs such as ATT and Comcast to warp the experience of accessing any content
available on the internet to their own desires. (FCC, 2015)
There are many separate groups putting effort into repealing these changes. 35 states have
introduced bills and legislation to protect Net Neutrality. (Net Neutrality Explained) Along
with the 35 states, California, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have passed laws to protect
the Net Neutrality Rules. (Boyd, 2007)(FCC, 2015)
• Most of the laws have their own changes but there are quite a few common features:
• Prohibit all ISPs from blocking lawful content, applications, and services.
• Requires ISPs to publicly disclose their network configuration and management
principles
• Establish a certification system or registries of the ISPs which meet the net neutrality
requirements
• US Congress shall implement net neutrality requirements but have not regulatory power
of their own.
Body
When first commercially available, people could access the internet through services like
AOL and CompuServe, a so-called “Walled Garden”. You had access through the internet to

Case Study Report – MGA 2019 2

Fight for the Future and Net Neutrality

the service provider’s email, newsgroups, bulletin boards, and everything else they could
offer to you. (Dunbar-Hester 2012).This is no longer the case. Now, the people get access to
the internet through their cable or a telephone company. They use separate email providers,
news outlets, and other wildly varying services. (FCC, 2015)These services which are
available to them are no longer in the control of the cable/telephone companies. People are
simply using access like a telephone. (Dunbar-Hester 2012)
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) studied this shift and in 2015, reclassified
broadband as a telecommunication service. This reclassification allowed the FCC to have
more regulatory authority over the industry and the beginning of the first Net Neutrality
Rules. They were designed to prevent internet service providers from discriminating against
separate providers of services or content.
With the repealing of Net Neutrality, the FCC is changing all that. Companies want to be able
to reach their customers without hindrance from the cable companies. With the rules being
taken away there would be nothing stopping the ISPs from throttling traffic to and from a
website or even blocked. Political groups send out ads to constituents could be interference
from the IPSs if they wish.
The EU has their own version of Net Neutrality across most of Europe.(FCC, 2015) When we
remove the rules which have been adopted by our commercial trading partners, we are taking
ourselves out of the pool of viable commercial prospects. (Dunbar-Hester 2012)
Consumers are benefited by the internet creating an open and fair market place for companies
to reach them. With net neutrality rules keeping the IPSs from pushing the consumers from
one service over another, it is creating competition between suppliers and thus keeping rates
for services low. (Net Neutrality Explained. n.d.) Having a vastly competitive market also
means that the consumers will get to make their own choices. (FCC, 2015)
Conclusion
With the FCC deciding that the internet is no longer an open-access tool for the exchange of
ideas and instead of a service which should be regulated in a manner such as a phone,
electricity, and water. The internet has taken the next step in its growth, according to the FCC.
With this growth, comes growing pains. The world wants to keep the rules concerning the
internet the same but the ones that supply access to the internet want to make it an option for
them to monetize access again. There are many benefits to keeping the rules the same for the

Case Study Report – MGA 2019 3

Fight for the Future and Net Neutrality

people using the internet and benefits to the ISPs for changing the rules. Whether or not the
rules will stay changed is still in debate, but one thing is for certain, this prospective change
will be on the minds of many commercial entities

Case Study Report – MGA 2019 4

Fight for the Future and Net Neutrality

References
Landgraf (2019). THE STATE OF Net Neutrality: A coast-to-coast roundup of efforts to
restore the open internet. American Libraries, 50(1/2), 48–53. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.mga.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=fth&AN=133975631&site=eds-live&scope site

Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2011). Digital media and the personalization of collective
action: Social technology and the organization of protests against the global economic
crisis. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 770–799.

Boyd, d. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in
teenage social life. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning— Youth,
Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bridy, A. (2012). Copyright policymaking as procedural democratic process: A discourse-

theoretic perspective on ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law
Journal, 30, 153–164.

Dunbar-Hester, C. (2012). Soldering toward media democracy technical practice as symbolic

value in radio activism. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36(2), 149–169.

Net Neutrality Explained. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/christopher-jon-sprigman-net-neutrality-explained

Case Study Report – MGA 2019 5