Question

4. Net Neutrality and Your ISP The term net neutrality refers to the equality of data as it is transferred over the Internet. For instance, the data from an individual and the data from Microsoft are treated the same. A recent controversy surrounding the cable giant Comcast brought up the possibility of ISPs interfering with the delivery of Internet data. According to complaints by customers, Comcast has been blocking the use of P2P sites like BitTorrent to download movies, music, and other large files. Comcast, like most ISPs, includes a statement in its terms of service that allows it to use tools to “efficiently manage its networks,” in order to prevent those customers using a higher than normal level of bandwidth from interfering with the access of other customers. However, the Comcast issue was considered by many to be a blatant net neutrality issue—blocking access to multimedia from sources other than its own cable sources. Do you think the actions taken by Comcast were ethical? Does an ISP have a right to block selected Internet traffic? Why or why not? Was there a more ethical way Comcast could have handled the problem of some users consuming a higher than normal level of bandwidth? For this project, form an opinion about the ethical ramifications of ISPs blocking selected Internet traffic and be prepared to discuss your position (in class, via an online class forum, or via a class blog, depending on your instructor’s directions). You may also be asked to write a short paper expressing your opinion.

[Your response to the discussion question(s) should be well-thought out and a minimum of 250-words long.]

Answer 1

For the first part are ISP 's or do they have the power/right to block certain traffic ,  The answer is yes and partly no , the ISP"s act in accordance with the laws set up by the nation in which it provides it's services , SO only if the nation asks the ISP's to block a particular traffic they have the irght to do so , but not without approval, So the way in which Comcast blocked the traffic was not ethical but agian being a private service provider they lay out certain terms and conditions which teh customer unknowingly agress to so there is nothign the customer can actually do.

Now comign to the second part , could it have been handled in a better way , Yes , definitely .The way in which Cocast completely blcoked the traffic was not at all customer friendly , instead they could have issue warning popups (the ISP's knwo which site we visit so they can easily send the popup ) . In this way they would have not been blocking the traffic but asking the user to refrain from visiting such sites. As a customer who pays for the services expects that he/she is ablet to visit and surf whatever is allowed as per the law , and so it would have been much better to let the user decide for themselves.