The end of web neutrality, the end of the Internet?

The article ‘The end of web neutrality, the end of the Internet’ states that as per the decision of FCC, the agency of USA will be accountable for the telecom sector of United States of America. This has been modified the position of the service providers of internet. In United States of America, there has long been the call for deregulation of sector of ISPs. In beginning of year 2000, the Voice over IP (VoIP) was developed. The communications through telephone was costly in the USA at the time; this system that created it possible to do phone call at no cost, for that reason met huge achievement. The same phenomenon may be appeared in the present world with the services given by Netflix that may freely render the users with streaming video contents. From year 2013, various efforts have created to finish the legal concept of common carrier as applied to Internet access providers of United States (De Carvalho, Schaurich and Granville, 2018). There is thus a disagreement between content providers and service providers (pipes). The service providers protest that the content providers are making benefits of pipe, with no contribution to develop an infrastructure. The important thing to consider is that certain huge 5 tech corporations are their personal internet service provider. For an instance, Google is internet service provider for city Kansas. This is also possibly the biggest owner of optical fiber. In conclusion, the investments seem sustainable, even in the market places of Europe that is considerably more viable than the market places of United States, where the cost to subscribe the internet are 3 times costly in comparison of cost in Europe. In this way, it seems possible for internet service providers to keep the investment’s level (Smirnova, Lipenbergs and Bobrovs, 2018).

Running head: ARTICLE REVIEW 1
COMMERCIAL LAW
STUDENT DETAILS:
4/16/2019

ARTICLE REVIEW 2
Article: The end of web neutrality, the end of the Internet?
Summary of Article
The article ‘The end of web neutrality, the end of the Internet’ states that as per the decision of
FCC, the agency of USA will be accountable for the telecom sector of United States of America.
This has been modified the position of the service providers of internet. In United States of
America, there has long been the call for deregulation of sector of ISPs. In beginning of year
2000, the Voice over IP (VoIP) was developed. The communications through telephone was
costly in the USA at the time; this system that created it possible to do phone call at no cost, for
that reason met huge achievement. The same phenomenon may be appeared in the present world
with the services given by Netflix that may freely render the users with streaming video contents.
From year 2013, various efforts have created to finish the legal concept of common carrier as
applied to Internet access providers of United States (De Carvalho, Schaurich and Granville,
2018).
There is thus a disagreement between content providers and service providers (pipes). The
service providers protest that the content providers are making benefits of pipe, with no
contribution to develop an infrastructure. The important thing to consider is that certain huge 5
tech corporations are their personal internet service provider. For an instance, Google is internet
service provider for city Kansas. This is also possibly the biggest owner of optical fiber. In
conclusion, the investments seem sustainable, even in the market places of Europe that is
considerably more viable than the market places of United States, where the cost to subscribe the
internet are 3 times costly in comparison of cost in Europe. In this way, it seems possible for

ARTICLE REVIEW 3
internet service providers to keep the investment’s level (Smirnova, Lipenbergs and Bobrovs,
2018).
Relevance or significance of the article for Corporate Law
When the Europe is secured due to the laws over the access of open Internet, followed in year
2015, the changes in America render the great chance for stating on the impartiality of the
services related to internet. In the addition of this, the Internet services providers (ISPs) provide
the services to the subscribers. This is considered as the neutral service’s supplier that is not
required to affect that how the subscribers make use of a network. It differs with the channels of
TV that have the rights to handle the broadcasting as they desire and may as a result present
differentiate broadcast services (Antonopoulos, et. al, 2017).
Moreover, the English law and American law needs the corporation subject to this kind of
regulations and rules to convey the products and human beings without any favoritism. In this
way, it can say that this article states that it is required by the Internet service providers (ISPs)
for transporting the network packets with no discrimination in respect of the kind of services or
sources of services. Additionally, utilizing the similar comparison, the services of internet may
be compared to the cities. The main objective is to influence the visitors. They obtain financial
advantages, in the variety of spending of visitor, devoid of making contribution to an expansion
of central road networking, which make able the visitors to access them. The system runs due to
the reason that the state takes the huge part of the tax and is a sponsor of the products of public.
In this way, as per the law, it is an obligation to permit access to each city, with no favoritism
and unfairness. The state also makes sure that same laws are made in the various cities that are
not found in a world of internet (Nguyen, et. al, 2018). In addition to a requirement for neutral

ARTICLE REVIEW 4
pipe, this will be useful to reflect on the neutrality of services and algorithms. As per the General
Data Protection Regulation, this would help to strengthen the faith and belief in the operations of
all networks and services.

ARTICLE REVIEW 5
References
Antonopoulos, A., Kartsakli, E., Perillo, C. and Verikoukis, C. (2017) Shedding light on the
Internet: Stakeholders and network neutrality. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(7), pp.216-
223.
De Carvalho, M.B., Schaurich, V.G. and Granville, L.Z. (2018) Considering Jurisdiction When
Assessing End-to-End Network Neutrality. IEEE Internet Computing, 22(6), pp.27-34.
Nguyen, V., Mohammed, D., Omar, M. and Banisakher, M. (2018) The Effects of the FCC Net
Neutrality Repeal on Security and Privacy. International Journal of Hyperconnectivity and the
Internet of Things (IJHIoT), 2(2), pp.21-29.
Smirnova, I., Lipenbergs, E. and Bobrovs, V. (2018) Mathematical Algorithm for Processing
Measurement Results of Internet Access Service in the Scope of Net Neutrality. Latvian Journal
of Physics and Technical Sciences, 55(3), pp.63-69.