Sean O’Fallon
5/19/17
CST 373 Ethics in Comm & Tech
Net Neutrality
“Net Neutrality is the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all lawful data and internet traffic that travels over their network equally, without discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites, or services” (Newman, 2017). Those in favor of net neutrality argue that it is good for competition and innovation for people to have equal access to web content. Opponents of net neutrality argue that without it, ISPs will be incentivized to build better infrastructure since they will be able to charge companies more money for faster speeds. While there are many more arguments for and against net neutrality, this seems to be the heart of the matter.
The technology ISPs use to control data limits is nothing new and can technically be done by them at any time. One of the ways an ISP can limit its customer’s data is by simply dropping packets. When a customer hits some sort of imposed data limit, the ISP stops accepting new data packets from being transmitted over that line until they say it is okay once again (“How does your ISP,” 2009). ISPs can set rules for data limits quite easily. On Cisco routers, an Access Control List can be placed on an inbound or outbound port of a router to monitor the source and destination of data as well as information about the data packet’s contents (“Cisco IOS Security Configuration,” 2014). This could mean that depending on the rules that are in place, certain connections could have limited data rates through a network or be completely forbidden from sending or receiving certain types of data.
The debate over net neutrality has been going on for a number of years now and was thought to be settled once and for all on February 26th, 2015 when the FCC passed the vote, 3 to 2, to reclassify broadband internet as a Common Carrier. A Common Carrier is a private company, like a phone company, that are considered to be a public convenience and necessity that are governed by the FCC. The regulations imposed on Common Carriers can vary but they must provide services without discrimination at a reasonable price (“Net Neutrality Pros and Cons,” 2016). Classifying ISPs as Common Carriers has had very little noticeable effect from the view point of the average ISP customer. The purpose of reclassifying ISPs as a Common Carrier was not intended to fix a major problem we were having, its purpose in the eyes of the FCC and net neutrality supporters was to prevent ISPs from taking advantage of its customers, whether that is the average consumer or any person/company with a website or online service.
Newly appointed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is strongly against net neutrality as it currently is, and voted against its implementation in 2015. Pai, predicted that there would be “higher costs for consumers and less innovation by businesses” due to the results of the vote (Chappell, 2015). Since his inauguration a few months ago, net neutrality has become a topic of conversation again. Pai has stated that net neutrality was a serious mistake and that he would undo the classification as a public utility to let the industry police itself. There is very little information regarding how Pai is planning to change the net neutrality rules but he has said he would like to keep the basic principles of it in place, while not having heavy government intervention (Kang, 2017).
ISPs have been trying to find ways around net neutrality since its implementation. The most successful way they have done this is through something called zero-rating. Zero-rating is a service most often offered by ISPs that deal with mobile data such as AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile that give a low amount of bandwidth to its customers before charging them or throttling their service. Zero-rated plans give customers some services they can use that do not count towards their data limit. This is generally enjoyed by customers as they can often be services that are already widely used and can take a lot of data such as video streaming services. There have been different types of zero-rating services offered by ISPs but for consumers they are generally the same. Some companies such as Verizon and AT&T have implemented these services and allowed zero-rated content only for companies that pay them to not count toward customer’s data limits. This could be a great benefit to the zero-rated services as people would be much more incentivized to use a service when they know its use is not costing them anything extra (“Zero Rating,” 2016). T-Mobile has its own version of zero-rating that they are calling Binge-On. Binge-On gives access to services like ESPN, Hulu and Netflix in the same way that Verizon’s and AT&T’s service does (“Binge On,” 2015).
Earlier this year, the then FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, stated that “AT&T offers Sponsored Data to third-party content providers at terms and conditions that are effectively less favorable than those it offers to its affiliate, DirectTV.” He then goes on to say, “as noted above, there is some potential for discriminatory conduct in favor of affiliated services” (Brandom, 2017). Wheeler also takes issue with Verizon’s service though it does not seem to be as blatant of an offense toward net neutrality. T-Mobile is not mentioned in this same way as they seem to be the same service to each.
At first glance it’s easy to agree with zero-rating as a service. People like zero-rating because they do not like data limits. If zero-rating is more closely examined however, it is used in much the same way that concerns people about removing net neutrality. As previously stated, a major concern of those in favor of net neutrality is that its removal limits competition which is often said about zero-rating as well. Customers of an ISP would obviously be more likely to use services like Netflix if it is offered as a zero-rated service. Many people do not use video streaming services often due to the amount of data they use. Knowing they only have a couple gigabytes every month would make it difficult to justify the use of such a large data consumer. If the service is zero-rated however, a customer will not only use the service more, but will start to become more used to accessing only the zero-rated services instead of whichever is the best service for them. This will give Netflix, for example, a major advantage over its competitors. This advantage may not seem like a big deal to some, but it has the potential to be a major problem. If companies like Netflix have an advantage over competitors that is given to them by an ISP, there is very little opportunity for a new business to gain any ground even if there are reasons for customers to make the switch. If there was a new and similar company to Netflix that had a better selection of movies, TV shows, or original content, there would still be very little reason for a customer to switch to the new platform. This would mean that companies with this advantage can afford to become somewhat more lazy and new platforms would not be given a fair chance.
Net neutrality, while observed from a Kantian ethical framework, is very appealing. Emmanuel Kant believed that the only way to judge an actions moral goodness is to look at its intentions. This is a non-consequential framework that only accepts an action as good without qualification if it is done while taking moral considerations as the conclusive reason for performing an action (Johnson & Cureton, 2004). Seeing as the FCC imposed net neutrality on ISPs as a way of protecting people from being unfairly treated, it is safe to say it was done from a place of good will. The internet is not only a place that people go for entertainment, but also a place to conduct business and that nearly everyone in this country needs access to for one reason or another. Knowing this, the ISPs would be able to charge unreasonable rates or change the rules that govern its access because we all are required to have this service. This type of behavior from ISPs has already been seen and would likely continue without some type of intervention. In 2013, Comcast required Netflix to pay an additional fee for data traveling over their network. In the three months or so that followed, Comcast slowly started decreasing the amount of bandwidth heading to and from Netflix. After Netflix’s data rates dropped by over twenty percent, they agreed to pay this special fee for fear of upsetting or even losing customers. After this, Comcast returned Netflix’s data rates to where they previously had been and even increased their bandwidth by an additional twenty percent from its original value (Dickstein, 2014).
The abandonment of net neutrality can be easily supported using the Utilitarian framework. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist framework that is only concerned with the results of an action. Utilitarianism can be defined as maximizing the amount of good while minimizing the amount of bad (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2003). One of the main arguments against net neutrality is that without it, ISPs would be incentivized to build better infrastructure. There is very little reason for an ISP to grow their network now as there is little competition for them in most areas and would therefore not gain them any new customers or increase their revenue. From the ISPs perspective, building better infrastructure would be very costly and have no significant upside. If net neutrality is removed however, ISPs will be able to charge companies more money for improved service. Net neutrality does not allow an ISP to give companies priority access on their networks because it would be seen as discrimination toward other companies that did not pay the extra fee. Many that are opposed to net neutrality say that businesses would welcome the opportunity to improve their online status. If they are able to pay more money to have preferential treatment, they would be more likely to attract new customers due to their website or service which performs better than those that are not allowed to utilize the improved infrastructure (Litan & Singer, 2010).
There have been attempts in the past to provide underdeveloped countries with better internet access. Google and Facebook have both looked into this and only required that the government of these countries allow priority access to the company that was putting forward the considerable money needed to build these new networks in order to offset the cost. Both companies were told that they could not have priority access and as a direct result of net neutrality, neither moved forward with the project leaving the countries without internet access (Newman, 2017). Even if the inhabitants of these countries had internet access that was geared toward the use of specific platforms, this is still creating much more good than bad. Leaving these countries without internet access is obviously a net loss for them and for the company. If net neutrality was not a factor, the foundation of networks in underdeveloped countries along with the improved networks in the United States would be highly beneficial to all parties.
The main problem with abandoning net neutrality is that it is difficult to trust that Internet Service Providers have our best interest at heart. I find it hard to believe that they will simple provide faster access to the websites that can pay their new rates and not throttle the data to those that cannot pay. From a Utilitarian perspective, removing net neutrality is only a good thing in the initial stages. There will most likely be better infrastructure, but being incentivized to use the websites or services that are already popular or have enough funding will certainly hinder the diversity of online content. There is an interesting video from YouTuber, CGP Grey, that illustrates a point better than any written article can. About halfway through the video, there is a fake buffering that occurs which immediately makes me feel a significant amount of frustration until I realize that the video is still playing (Grey, 2014). I think this shows just how sensitive we can all be to disruptions we are not used to. ISPs will likely throttle the bandwidth of many websites and services that may not be able to afford the extra costs which will drive consumers away from that content. If the ISP is allowed to throttle access to certain content providers, it is possible they would not bother to build better infrastructure. They can achieve the same end result of getting more money by charging companies to not throttle their data, just like Comcast did to Netflix a few years ago.
The only guaranteed way that an ISP will improve its infrastructure is when there is competition. As previously stated, there is very little competition for ISPs. The most well-known competitor in recent history has been Google Fiber. Two years ago, in Kansas City, Google Fiber was said to be entering the market and offering 1 gigabit per second connections for $70 a month. Upon hearing this, AT&T announced that they too would be offering this service at the same price. Time Warner then increased data rates of its customers, though not to the same speed, and did not increase the price per month (Star, 2015). Occurrences like this happen in every city Google Fiber enters, proving that abandoning net neutrality is not necessary to receive improved data rates.
I believe net neutrality is a necessity and that offering zero-rating should not be allowed as it currently exists. It can be difficult to get rid of something like zero-rating since it is so widely enjoyed, but it reminds me of a parent telling their child not to eat ice cream for breakfast. The child doesn’t know any better and sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions for their own benefit. Canada is currently having similar issues with their own ISPs and they are making some interesting decisions that the United States should consider. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has a much stricter stance on zero-rating than the United States and monitors it on a complaints-based system. The CRTC states that these zero-rated programs will be judged based on, “the degree to which the treatment of data is agnostic (i.e., data is treated equally regardless of its source or nature); whether the offering is exclusive to certain customers or certain content providers; the impact on Internet openness and innovation; and whether there is financial compensation involved (Brodkin, 2017).” I think adopting a much stricter stance on zero-rating, particularly one that ensures there will be innovation and fair treatment of data, along with continuing to support net neutrality will ensure that the future of the internet is protected.
Bibliography
Newman, K. (2017, February 08). Net Neutrality. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://bluefletch.com/blog/net-neutrality/
How does your ISP actually enforce your Internet Speed. (2009, November 19). Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://netequalizernews.com/2009/11/19/the-inside-story-on-how-bandwidth-controllers-enforce-fixed-rate-limits/
Cisco IOS Security Configuration Guide, Release 12.2 - Access Control Lists: Overview and Guidelines [Cisco IOS Software Release 12.2]. (2014, February 12). Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2/security/configuration/guide/fsecur_c/scfacls.html
Net Neutrality Pros and Cons: the Debate Continues. (2016, December 02). Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://www.telehouse.com/2015/08/net-neutrality-pros-and-cons-the-debate-continues/
Chappell, B. (2015, February 26). FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet' Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board
Kang, C. (2017, April 26). F.C.C. Chairman Pushes Sweeping Changes to Net Neutrality Rules. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/technology/net-neutrality.html
Zero Rating: What It Is and Why You Should Care. (2016, February 18). Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/zero-rating-what-it-is-why-you-should-care
Binge On will let T-Mobile customers stream video without using their high-speed data allotment. (2015, November 10). Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://www.tmonews.com/2015/11/binge-on-will-let-t-mobile-customers-stream-video-without-using-their-high-speed-data-allotment/
Brandom, R. (2017, January 11). New FCC report says AT&T and Verizon zero-rating violates net neutrality. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/11/14243196/fcc-zero-rating-report-net-neutrality-att-verizon-t-mobile
Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2004, February 23). Kant's Moral Philosophy. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#GooWilMorWorDut
Dickstein, E. (2014, November 13). Why Small Businesses MUST Focus on Net Neutrality. Retrieved April 05, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erika-dickstein/why-small-businesses-must_b_6149288.html
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2003, May 20). Consequentialism. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#ClaUti
Litan, R., & Singer, H. (2010, August 13). Why Business Should Oppose Net Neutrality. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2010/08/why-business-should-oppose-net-neutrality
Grey, C. (2014, May 05). Internet Citizens: Defend Net Neutrality. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/internet-citizens-defend-net-neutrality
Star, S. C. (2015, February 15). AT&T to match Google Fiber speeds, prices in Kansas City and suburbs. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article10441850.html
Brodkin, J. (2017, April 21). As US prepares to gut net neutrality rules, Canada strengthens them. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/as-us-prepares-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-canada-strengthens-them/
5/19/17
CST 373 Ethics in Comm & Tech
Net Neutrality
“Net Neutrality is the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all lawful data and internet traffic that travels over their network equally, without discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites, or services” (Newman, 2017). Those in favor of net neutrality argue that it is good for competition and innovation for people to have equal access to web content. Opponents of net neutrality argue that without it, ISPs will be incentivized to build better infrastructure since they will be able to charge companies more money for faster speeds. While there are many more arguments for and against net neutrality, this seems to be the heart of the matter.
The technology ISPs use to control data limits is nothing new and can technically be done by them at any time. One of the ways an ISP can limit its customer’s data is by simply dropping packets. When a customer hits some sort of imposed data limit, the ISP stops accepting new data packets from being transmitted over that line until they say it is okay once again (“How does your ISP,” 2009). ISPs can set rules for data limits quite easily. On Cisco routers, an Access Control List can be placed on an inbound or outbound port of a router to monitor the source and destination of data as well as information about the data packet’s contents (“Cisco IOS Security Configuration,” 2014). This could mean that depending on the rules that are in place, certain connections could have limited data rates through a network or be completely forbidden from sending or receiving certain types of data.
The debate over net neutrality has been going on for a number of years now and was thought to be settled once and for all on February 26th, 2015 when the FCC passed the vote, 3 to 2, to reclassify broadband internet as a Common Carrier. A Common Carrier is a private company, like a phone company, that are considered to be a public convenience and necessity that are governed by the FCC. The regulations imposed on Common Carriers can vary but they must provide services without discrimination at a reasonable price (“Net Neutrality Pros and Cons,” 2016). Classifying ISPs as Common Carriers has had very little noticeable effect from the view point of the average ISP customer. The purpose of reclassifying ISPs as a Common Carrier was not intended to fix a major problem we were having, its purpose in the eyes of the FCC and net neutrality supporters was to prevent ISPs from taking advantage of its customers, whether that is the average consumer or any person/company with a website or online service.
Newly appointed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is strongly against net neutrality as it currently is, and voted against its implementation in 2015. Pai, predicted that there would be “higher costs for consumers and less innovation by businesses” due to the results of the vote (Chappell, 2015). Since his inauguration a few months ago, net neutrality has become a topic of conversation again. Pai has stated that net neutrality was a serious mistake and that he would undo the classification as a public utility to let the industry police itself. There is very little information regarding how Pai is planning to change the net neutrality rules but he has said he would like to keep the basic principles of it in place, while not having heavy government intervention (Kang, 2017).
ISPs have been trying to find ways around net neutrality since its implementation. The most successful way they have done this is through something called zero-rating. Zero-rating is a service most often offered by ISPs that deal with mobile data such as AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile that give a low amount of bandwidth to its customers before charging them or throttling their service. Zero-rated plans give customers some services they can use that do not count towards their data limit. This is generally enjoyed by customers as they can often be services that are already widely used and can take a lot of data such as video streaming services. There have been different types of zero-rating services offered by ISPs but for consumers they are generally the same. Some companies such as Verizon and AT&T have implemented these services and allowed zero-rated content only for companies that pay them to not count toward customer’s data limits. This could be a great benefit to the zero-rated services as people would be much more incentivized to use a service when they know its use is not costing them anything extra (“Zero Rating,” 2016). T-Mobile has its own version of zero-rating that they are calling Binge-On. Binge-On gives access to services like ESPN, Hulu and Netflix in the same way that Verizon’s and AT&T’s service does (“Binge On,” 2015).
Earlier this year, the then FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, stated that “AT&T offers Sponsored Data to third-party content providers at terms and conditions that are effectively less favorable than those it offers to its affiliate, DirectTV.” He then goes on to say, “as noted above, there is some potential for discriminatory conduct in favor of affiliated services” (Brandom, 2017). Wheeler also takes issue with Verizon’s service though it does not seem to be as blatant of an offense toward net neutrality. T-Mobile is not mentioned in this same way as they seem to be the same service to each.
At first glance it’s easy to agree with zero-rating as a service. People like zero-rating because they do not like data limits. If zero-rating is more closely examined however, it is used in much the same way that concerns people about removing net neutrality. As previously stated, a major concern of those in favor of net neutrality is that its removal limits competition which is often said about zero-rating as well. Customers of an ISP would obviously be more likely to use services like Netflix if it is offered as a zero-rated service. Many people do not use video streaming services often due to the amount of data they use. Knowing they only have a couple gigabytes every month would make it difficult to justify the use of such a large data consumer. If the service is zero-rated however, a customer will not only use the service more, but will start to become more used to accessing only the zero-rated services instead of whichever is the best service for them. This will give Netflix, for example, a major advantage over its competitors. This advantage may not seem like a big deal to some, but it has the potential to be a major problem. If companies like Netflix have an advantage over competitors that is given to them by an ISP, there is very little opportunity for a new business to gain any ground even if there are reasons for customers to make the switch. If there was a new and similar company to Netflix that had a better selection of movies, TV shows, or original content, there would still be very little reason for a customer to switch to the new platform. This would mean that companies with this advantage can afford to become somewhat more lazy and new platforms would not be given a fair chance.
Net neutrality, while observed from a Kantian ethical framework, is very appealing. Emmanuel Kant believed that the only way to judge an actions moral goodness is to look at its intentions. This is a non-consequential framework that only accepts an action as good without qualification if it is done while taking moral considerations as the conclusive reason for performing an action (Johnson & Cureton, 2004). Seeing as the FCC imposed net neutrality on ISPs as a way of protecting people from being unfairly treated, it is safe to say it was done from a place of good will. The internet is not only a place that people go for entertainment, but also a place to conduct business and that nearly everyone in this country needs access to for one reason or another. Knowing this, the ISPs would be able to charge unreasonable rates or change the rules that govern its access because we all are required to have this service. This type of behavior from ISPs has already been seen and would likely continue without some type of intervention. In 2013, Comcast required Netflix to pay an additional fee for data traveling over their network. In the three months or so that followed, Comcast slowly started decreasing the amount of bandwidth heading to and from Netflix. After Netflix’s data rates dropped by over twenty percent, they agreed to pay this special fee for fear of upsetting or even losing customers. After this, Comcast returned Netflix’s data rates to where they previously had been and even increased their bandwidth by an additional twenty percent from its original value (Dickstein, 2014).
The abandonment of net neutrality can be easily supported using the Utilitarian framework. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist framework that is only concerned with the results of an action. Utilitarianism can be defined as maximizing the amount of good while minimizing the amount of bad (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2003). One of the main arguments against net neutrality is that without it, ISPs would be incentivized to build better infrastructure. There is very little reason for an ISP to grow their network now as there is little competition for them in most areas and would therefore not gain them any new customers or increase their revenue. From the ISPs perspective, building better infrastructure would be very costly and have no significant upside. If net neutrality is removed however, ISPs will be able to charge companies more money for improved service. Net neutrality does not allow an ISP to give companies priority access on their networks because it would be seen as discrimination toward other companies that did not pay the extra fee. Many that are opposed to net neutrality say that businesses would welcome the opportunity to improve their online status. If they are able to pay more money to have preferential treatment, they would be more likely to attract new customers due to their website or service which performs better than those that are not allowed to utilize the improved infrastructure (Litan & Singer, 2010).
There have been attempts in the past to provide underdeveloped countries with better internet access. Google and Facebook have both looked into this and only required that the government of these countries allow priority access to the company that was putting forward the considerable money needed to build these new networks in order to offset the cost. Both companies were told that they could not have priority access and as a direct result of net neutrality, neither moved forward with the project leaving the countries without internet access (Newman, 2017). Even if the inhabitants of these countries had internet access that was geared toward the use of specific platforms, this is still creating much more good than bad. Leaving these countries without internet access is obviously a net loss for them and for the company. If net neutrality was not a factor, the foundation of networks in underdeveloped countries along with the improved networks in the United States would be highly beneficial to all parties.
The main problem with abandoning net neutrality is that it is difficult to trust that Internet Service Providers have our best interest at heart. I find it hard to believe that they will simple provide faster access to the websites that can pay their new rates and not throttle the data to those that cannot pay. From a Utilitarian perspective, removing net neutrality is only a good thing in the initial stages. There will most likely be better infrastructure, but being incentivized to use the websites or services that are already popular or have enough funding will certainly hinder the diversity of online content. There is an interesting video from YouTuber, CGP Grey, that illustrates a point better than any written article can. About halfway through the video, there is a fake buffering that occurs which immediately makes me feel a significant amount of frustration until I realize that the video is still playing (Grey, 2014). I think this shows just how sensitive we can all be to disruptions we are not used to. ISPs will likely throttle the bandwidth of many websites and services that may not be able to afford the extra costs which will drive consumers away from that content. If the ISP is allowed to throttle access to certain content providers, it is possible they would not bother to build better infrastructure. They can achieve the same end result of getting more money by charging companies to not throttle their data, just like Comcast did to Netflix a few years ago.
The only guaranteed way that an ISP will improve its infrastructure is when there is competition. As previously stated, there is very little competition for ISPs. The most well-known competitor in recent history has been Google Fiber. Two years ago, in Kansas City, Google Fiber was said to be entering the market and offering 1 gigabit per second connections for $70 a month. Upon hearing this, AT&T announced that they too would be offering this service at the same price. Time Warner then increased data rates of its customers, though not to the same speed, and did not increase the price per month (Star, 2015). Occurrences like this happen in every city Google Fiber enters, proving that abandoning net neutrality is not necessary to receive improved data rates.
I believe net neutrality is a necessity and that offering zero-rating should not be allowed as it currently exists. It can be difficult to get rid of something like zero-rating since it is so widely enjoyed, but it reminds me of a parent telling their child not to eat ice cream for breakfast. The child doesn’t know any better and sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions for their own benefit. Canada is currently having similar issues with their own ISPs and they are making some interesting decisions that the United States should consider. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has a much stricter stance on zero-rating than the United States and monitors it on a complaints-based system. The CRTC states that these zero-rated programs will be judged based on, “the degree to which the treatment of data is agnostic (i.e., data is treated equally regardless of its source or nature); whether the offering is exclusive to certain customers or certain content providers; the impact on Internet openness and innovation; and whether there is financial compensation involved (Brodkin, 2017).” I think adopting a much stricter stance on zero-rating, particularly one that ensures there will be innovation and fair treatment of data, along with continuing to support net neutrality will ensure that the future of the internet is protected.
Bibliography
Newman, K. (2017, February 08). Net Neutrality. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://bluefletch.com/blog/net-neutrality/
How does your ISP actually enforce your Internet Speed. (2009, November 19). Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://netequalizernews.com/2009/11/19/the-inside-story-on-how-bandwidth-controllers-enforce-fixed-rate-limits/
Cisco IOS Security Configuration Guide, Release 12.2 - Access Control Lists: Overview and Guidelines [Cisco IOS Software Release 12.2]. (2014, February 12). Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2/security/configuration/guide/fsecur_c/scfacls.html
Net Neutrality Pros and Cons: the Debate Continues. (2016, December 02). Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://www.telehouse.com/2015/08/net-neutrality-pros-and-cons-the-debate-continues/
Chappell, B. (2015, February 26). FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet' Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board
Kang, C. (2017, April 26). F.C.C. Chairman Pushes Sweeping Changes to Net Neutrality Rules. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/technology/net-neutrality.html
Zero Rating: What It Is and Why You Should Care. (2016, February 18). Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/zero-rating-what-it-is-why-you-should-care
Binge On will let T-Mobile customers stream video without using their high-speed data allotment. (2015, November 10). Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://www.tmonews.com/2015/11/binge-on-will-let-t-mobile-customers-stream-video-without-using-their-high-speed-data-allotment/
Brandom, R. (2017, January 11). New FCC report says AT&T and Verizon zero-rating violates net neutrality. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/11/14243196/fcc-zero-rating-report-net-neutrality-att-verizon-t-mobile
Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2004, February 23). Kant's Moral Philosophy. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#GooWilMorWorDut
Dickstein, E. (2014, November 13). Why Small Businesses MUST Focus on Net Neutrality. Retrieved April 05, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erika-dickstein/why-small-businesses-must_b_6149288.html
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2003, May 20). Consequentialism. Retrieved May 18, 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#ClaUti
Litan, R., & Singer, H. (2010, August 13). Why Business Should Oppose Net Neutrality. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2010/08/why-business-should-oppose-net-neutrality
Grey, C. (2014, May 05). Internet Citizens: Defend Net Neutrality. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/internet-citizens-defend-net-neutrality
Star, S. C. (2015, February 15). AT&T to match Google Fiber speeds, prices in Kansas City and suburbs. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article10441850.html
Brodkin, J. (2017, April 21). As US prepares to gut net neutrality rules, Canada strengthens them. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/as-us-prepares-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-canada-strengthens-them/