NET NEUTRALITY is the principle that ISPs such as Spectrum and Comcast ought to serve all the data equally, which flows through their cell towers and cables. This should not let them move such content into prioritized lanes while discriminating or otherwise blocking other content against it. These companies will not be able to prohibit you from accessing a service or slow down such as Hulu, Skype, or Netflix to persuade you to keep your cable bundle or purchase another video streaming service. ISPs would not be able to purposely slow down, block, or cost money for particular services with net neutrality. While on the other hand, without net neutrality ISPs can prioritize specific content, slow down others, or may even block traffic from certain services, while charging customers for different service levels.
The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has spent years seeking to implement net neutrality protections, under both the Bush and Obama regime. The FCC passed a landmark net neutrality order in 2015, following a string of legal losses at the hands of internet providers. But the FCC voted to drop that order in December 2017, allowing Internet providers to slow or block content unless the courts or Congress prevent the decision of the regulator.
Net neutrality proponents have long argued that ensuring a free playing field for the internet is key to innovation. When broadband providers select favorites online, new companies and innovations can never have the opportunity to expand. For instance, we would not have Netflix or YouTube today if we had internet providers blocked or heavily limited video sharing in the mid-2000s. Some advocates stress the value of net neutrality for free expression: a handful of major telecommunication firms dominate the internet market, which brings a tremendous amount of leverage into their hands to censor specific viewpoints or limit online speech to those who can pay the most.
Spectrum’s stance on net neutrality?
Big ISPs such as Charter, AT&T, and Verizon unanimously announced that the demise of net neutrality would be a genuinely wonderful thing for American customers. Spectrum internet has argued that the neutralization of traditionally common consumer rights on this front would somehow lead to better broadband for all. In reality, hundreds of industry CEOs have openly acknowledged to investors and media outlets that the whole "net neutrality hurts investment in broadband" is completely groundless.
Spectrum believes in an unregulated internet to provide readers with content. When Net Neutrality goes away, small, independent websites would be at the hands of Internet Service Providers that are likely to provide quick loading to sites that pay money and provide ISPs with some advantage. Spectrum may see slower load times, rendering sites potentially unusable. Beyond that, if they wanted to, ISPs could enforce fees to make websites load quickly. Furthermore, the concept of Spectrum assumes an open, unfettered exchange of ideas and communication. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs might shut down any websites they hate, offering news and views. It’s quite simple to understand that the end of Net Neutrality could mean the end for countless small, independent websites.
Spectrum believes in providing customers with a superior experience which is why they advocate an open internet for all. They simply put customers’ experience first.
Nonetheless, without the regulatory overhang of these laws, businesses would have the confidence they need to make long-term investments in infrastructure, allowing more people to get online and making broadband even faster. This, in turn, would make high-speed internet available to remote areas where it is usually difficult to serve. Charter’s highest priority is towards their clients, encouraging Congress to pass new legislation that will maintain an open internet and ensure a regulatory system for the 21st century so that they can continue to develop and invest in networks and provide access to a fast, secure and accessible internet for more people.
The letter from AT&T will quickly trip readers up. In big letters, a message on AT&T's website says, "We support an open internet." But below this paragraph, which seems to promote net neutrality, AT&T speaks out against the net neutrality rules. The company reported 16 million users and remains at best tentative and at worst inconsistent in its presence to support net neutrality — and in its calls for consumers to join in supporting their position.
Verizon once posted a video where one of its top legal advisors attempts to clarify that the FCC is not actually abolishing net neutrality. Yet, half of what he claims is misleading, or simply not true. Memorably, in a scathing collapse, The Verge looked at those remarks. Verizon simply doesn't want the internet to be treated like a utility, given how necessary it is for tens of millions of people to find work, get an education, and interact with the world.
The Future of Net Neutrality
Net neutrality's future is now in the hands of Congress, the courts, and the states. At least three bills on net neutrality are being debated by Congress. One plan, mainly supported by Democrats, would reverse the decision taken by the FCC, leaving the rules in place for 2015. The bill has already been passed in the Senate, with the help of three Republicans and both Democrats and Independents of the Senate. The House of Representatives will vote next, as Republicans outnumber Democrats 235 to 193. If it passes in the House it will either require the approval of President Trump, or a fairly large vote by Congress to override its veto.