Particular statement

The central issue can be traced back when the internet was made open for commercial use in the year 1990. The agency responsible for the development of internet removed the prohibitions that were previously placed to hinder the public from using the said service. In the year 2001, another development was made where the protocols were provided to achieve quality of service but was still unavailable to other internet providers. After two years, network neutrality was initiated and proposed to be implemented in the usage of internet services.

The paper suggests the need for laws that would cover network neutrality which states that there should be impartiality between applications and access to other services without bigotry on the other sites and platforms. As a response to the call, government made legislations regarding the issues of neutrality in the internet. The United States then issued directives on the concerned state agencies to implement such principles.

One specific case regarding violations of network neutrality involving a digital subscriber line company was documented by the commission when the said company intentionally blocked certain services, particularly the voice over internet protocol service. Three years have passed when the commission mandated to enforce the law on network neutrality finally accepted the four main doctrines in compliance to the same rule on the internet. During this time, statements were made by top officials of certain internet service company, which was said to be misinterpreted by others.

Debates started after this declaration was released and arguments started between the internet officials and some people who are advocates of network neutrality principle. Explanations were made by the spokesperson of the company to remove the speculations and misunderstanding on the previous statements mentioned by one of their officials but that seemed too late for others to forget such declarations. These debates continued to elevate, putting pressures on the government commission and other concerned agencies.

In the year 2006, the lower chamber of congress failed to tackle the law pertaining to internet neutrality and was only approved on the committee level. Another attempt was made by the legislators to pass the law, but was blocked by the members of senate during that time. If the bill was enacted into a law, one of the directives is for the broadband companies not to discriminate anyone to connect to their counterparts. It would also be a violation of the law if internet providers will prohibit their subscribers from access to other platforms.

More fines will also be given to those who will be caught violating the provisions of the law should the congress passed the bill. After one year, another company was found to be hindering some applications such as uploading files form other web sites using a certain technique which involves packet resetting. After this was discovered, many internet providers were alarmed of the possible consequences should the public was informed of these incidents. A press release was then made by the government agency telling the public that they are ready to prevent any attempts to violate neutrality on the internet.

They assured the people that they will not allow any manipulations that will interfere in any way with respect to free access to any platforms and application programs. Because of these declarations, some internet providers made an agreement with their counterparts about the possibility of working with each other for mutual benefits. They also made conformities on the protocols that will carefully manage the network flow of the system particularly when most number of users are surfing the internet.

In on of the circulations in the United States, a particular statement was again made stressing that broadband networks cannot allot their service only to frequent clients of the service. This declaration was based on the ruling of the concerned federal commission. The commission also made a ruling that one of the biggest company venturing on providing internet service was found guilty for the offenses made by the same to slow down the download rates of other clients to give more bandwidth to their big time customers. The commission has ruled that the said company has no right to implement such manipulations in the network flow of the system.