Brad Smoot

Research Techniques and Technology

Bibliographic Essay
11/23/15
Abstract
This bibliographic essay can be used to help research and collect sources regarding the
research question of Does Net Neutrality Play a Vital Part of Daily Life? Net Neutrality is a
crucial part of everyday internet usage which many people may not have even heard of, but relies
on every single time they use a computer for research or pleasure. The FCC is still continuously
battling in hope to eliminate net neutrality in order to extremely limit internet usage and freedom.
The FCC has tried to send multiple bills to congress to try and pass laws in order to limit the
internet to users and allow companies to pay for regulated usage that is normally free of charge.
This paper features multiple sources on net neutrality and how it may impact an internet
users life. These sources not only examine the pros and cons of net neutrality, but how either
side of the debate affects users. All of the sources presented are scholarly, but easily understood
by the general public audience.
Introduction
Net Neutrality is the ability to use the internet to communicate with other users, or to be
used for research or entertainment, without restrictions on what users can access. What is most
commonly thought of when net neutrality is brought up is that the users internet speed will slow
down if they do not pay enough money. While this is one of the many parts of net neutrality, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would also allow user information and data access
to be available to any party that was interested in it. The sources referenced in this paper are
great for researching into the different sides of net neutrality.
Positive Effects of Net Neutrality

Smoot 2
To fully understand the positive effects of net neutrality, it is important to outline some of
the most basic things that are probably taken for granted. Having a neutral internet means that
there is no discrimination on what users are accessing. All webpages and anything else that
requires internet will load at the same speed and not be blocked. The Internet Service Provider
(ISP) that the user is paying for internet, cannot block the websites they access or give out their
information.
This directly ties in with video game servers. To play online with other players, the host,
such as Sony, must pay an ISP for servers to run their game. If we did not have a neutral net, the
ISP could force Sony to pay much more for a service and then that new price would be the price
for all servers at the same speed for any company. The downside of this is Sony may need to run
a server for fifty-thousand players, and a smaller company may need to run a server of twothousand players, but they would both pay the price (Singer). Singer uses this comparison so that
it is a relatively easy concept to apply to oneself. His information is backed up by quite a few
sources that he lists at the end of his article.
Another benefit of net neutrality is freedom of speech on the internet. Freedom of Speech
comes into play when a user speaks of reads something on the internet. Taking away net
neutrality would mean that if the content provider was biased about something, then they could
show propaganda or anti-subject matter to the viewer (May). Free speech also affects journalists
and media coverage of subjects. If an ISP feels like the information is biased, or not biased
enough to what they want to be able to show, they can pick and choose articles, limiting what the
users would see. This would cause bias around certain subjects and the other side of the story
would be left in the dark (Fitzgerald).

Smoot 3
Although these two articles were written almost ten years apart, they are still dealing with
the same issues. This allows more questions to be asked about the free speech of the internet and
what should, or should not be allowed. Both of these articles allow for more research to be done
and to dig deeper into the rules that the FCC placed, and whether they are fair or not.
The last major benefit of net neutrality is that there are not any fast lanes. What is
implied by fast lanes is that ISPs would allow companies to pay more money for faster
speeds. This is a problem for smaller companies that cannot pay the higher fees for faster
internet. The smaller companies would then lose customers to the major cooperations that
already have customers and would also raise customer internet price. An example of this is say
the election is coming up and you would like to check a smaller news outlet because it is more
reliable and non-biased. You click on the website and it says, Data Cap Reached. This means
that the smaller company cannot afford to pay the same price as the major news outlets like
CNN, which can be heavily biased (Syed).
This article was written to inform researchers about net neutrality and give an indepth
look at how everything works. It provides multitudes of accurate sources and dates all the way
back to when the internet was invented and we started having the net neutrality debate. This
source allows for a lot more research to be done on the subject of net neutrality as a whole.
Negative Effects of Net Neutrality
A negative effect of net neutrality is that the rules are loose. The FCC has its certain rules
in place for regulating the net, but there is a back door to most of them to which companies use
to their advantage. One of the major titles, called Title II, does not directly address differentiated
price plans. This means that companies can still get away with different pricing points for the
data the customers are charged for. Another point that Title II is very vague about is

Smoot 4
discrimination. This allows companies to still ban unjust or unreasonable discrimination
(Porter). Although this article came from the New York Times, there are still some unbreakable
points where the author points out the flaws with Title II.
Another negative outcome of the rules of net neutrality, is that companies want to bend
the rules. A lot of the companies who would be able to use a regulated internet to their advantage
are finding loopholes and weak spots in the legislation. In 2010, the FCC appeared to have
turned its back, or given up the push for a neutral internet. Verizon took immediate advantage of
this by bringing a case to court to strike down the net neutrality rules. They won case, and shortly
after that, Netflix reported having to pay millions of dollars to Verizon so that their streaming
would not slow down. This is a main case of a company bending the rules to get what they want
(Ammori). This article showcases how loopholes are still found, even though there are rules
set in place to prevent that. This article was written in 2014 and is still fairly up to date with the
information it provides.
A third problem with net neutrality is the pricing of services that consumers are paying
for. If companies are not allowed to charge different fees to different kinds of user, how would
there be any market gain for the provider? Allowing different pricing plans for different users
allows some freedom with the ISPs in plans they can offer (Lee). This is what companies are
already doing as discussed by Ammori in the previous article. The only thing left to do is for the
government to put it into writing so that it does not seem so under the table. If the FCC does try
to impose new rules, then a whole different set of people will have problems with it. This is what
happened with the latest push where the people voted to have the net remain neutral. This lets
companies, such as Verizon, to keep bringing cases to court to have exceptions made for them
(Rash).

Smoot 5
How Other Countries Handle Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality affects other countries besides the United States as well. Each country has
their own rules for internet regulation. It really has not been an issue in the United Kingdom as
they have a lot of providers with a healthy amount of competition. The U.S. however has a few
ring leaders and several smaller companies who are all struggling for the same customer base.
While the U.S. struggles with Net Neutrality and has many debates over it, the U.K. structures
themselves on the United States rules. They hold to the culture, and they pick and choose the
rules that they like from the U.S. The U.K. also has a hands off rule, where if something contains
personal information that could be used or sold, they order that the ISPs have no jurisdiction
whatsoever (Powell).
With China however, the internet is a whole different story. Before the internet came
around to China, everything from the government was selectively chosen to be told to society.
Once China had access to the internet, they began reading more and more about things their
government was doing that they had never heard before. This has created a disconnect with the
people and their government. As the middle class begins to rise in China, they begin to care less
and less about politics and more about sharing their opinions online. The way that the
government can still control what people see and believe though, is that each site that is put
online in their country, must be approved by the government. If they do not like it, the site will
not be published (Jinqiu).
These articles are both scholarly and are very alike. They both talk about how things are
in their country, versus how things are in the United States. The pros and cons are mentioned and
how things are affected because of it. Both articles include the people versus the government and
how each are finding their way in or around each other and how the policies are still developing.

Smoot 6
Sweden is also a very hot topic with their rules on internet regulation. They have a very
interesting set of rules in place that allow certain websites like The Pirate Bay to remain online.
The Pirate Bay is a file sharing website that goes against many companies and distributes things
for free, where there is profit to be made by the original selling companies. Sweden has a domain
name regulation as well, which states that the name must reflect the name of a business. This is a
law that allows The Pirate Bay to stay in use, along with several other file sharing websites. The
United States has a big problem with file sharing websites, and have tried numerous times to take
them down, but because of Swedish law, the sites are able to stay in use (Roos). This article is
informative and scholarly in the way that it tells the reader of the rules that Sweden has in place.
This allows a researcher to dive more into the subject and find out why the rules are the way they
are and how certain websites can benefit from this.
Japan also has an interesting set of rules. Their ISPs are more competitive than the U.S.
simply because they have the fastest internet speeds in the world, and the most amount of people
packed into a very small area. They also have rules in place that allow traffic to be slowed, to
make it faster overall for everyone. The ISPs get to choose what traffic is acceptable and
unacceptable and can slow down connections or limit websites accordingly. For ISPs to do this,
they need access to basic data, which means a what websites are being accessed by a user, and
how often. Although, this is how they keep speeds up, there are other rules in place which
contradict what websites the ISPs are allowed to view and this creates a very thin line to walk if
they ISPs are wanting to regulate internet speed (Stevenson). This article is very easy to read
and understand, while also including comparisons of other countries and their policies. This
would be a very good article to start research on for a comparison paper.

Smoot 7
Works Cited
Ammori, Marvin. The Case For Net Neutrality. Foreign Affairs 93.4 (2014): 62-73. Business
Source Premier. Web. 21 Nov. 2015.
Fitzgerald, Michael. Need To Know. Nieman Reports 69.1 (2015): 42-45. Small Business
Reference Center. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
Jinqiu, Zhao. A Snapshot Of Internet Regulation In Contemporary China: Censorship,
Profitability And Responsibility. China Media Research 4.3 (2008): 37-42. Communication and
Mass Media Complete. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
Lee, Robin S, and Tim Wu. Subsidizing Creativity Through network Design: Zero-Pricing And
Net Neutrality. Journal Of Economic Perspectives 23.3 (2009): 61-76. Business Source
Premier. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.
May, Randolph J. Net Neutrality And Free Speech. Broadcasting & Cable 136.37 (2006): 34.
Communication & Mass media Complete. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.
Porter, Eduardo. The Pitfalls In Net Neutrality. New York Times 12 Nov. 2014: B1.
MasterFILE Premier. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.
Powell, Alison, and Alissa Cooper. Net Neutrality Discourses: Comparing Advocacy And
Regulatory Arguments In The United States And The United Kingdom. Information Society
27.5 (2011): 311-325. Education Research Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
Rash, Wayne. Hearing Witnesses Warn FCC Net Neutrality Initiative Doomed To Failure.
Eweek (2015): 1. Business Source Premier. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.
Roos, Fredrik. First Come, Not Served: Domain Name Regulation in Sweden. International
Review of Law, Computers & Technology 17.1 (2003): 63. Computer Source. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
Singer, Hal Jr. Net Neutrality: A Radical Form Of Non-Discrimination. Regulation 30.2
(2007): 36-41. Business Source Premier. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
Stevenson, John Harris, and Andrew Clement. Regulatory Lessons For Internet Traffic
Management From Japan, The European Union, and the United States: Toward Equity,
Neutrality, and Transparency. Global Media Journal Canadian Edition 3.1 (2010): 9-29.
Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.
Syed, Sheraz. Prioritizing Traffic: The Internet Fast Lane. Journal Of Art, Technology &
Intellectual Property Law 25.1 (2014): 151-181. Legal Collection. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.