The debate over the extent of regulation needed over Internet provider

The debate over the extent of regulation needed over Internet providers became more heated when, in 2005, the FCC determined that DSL services (technologies that use local telephone networks to transmit digital data) would no longer be controlled by common carrier regulations, but by "net neutrality principles." Net neutrality is a phrase that once applied to technical matters regarding the preference given to data applications over voice and video applications on the Internet, but is now used more broadly to stand for a general evenhandedness when it comes to how network operators (telecommunication firms and cable companies) interact with the content providers who use the networks. Most people take for granted that the network operators have no reason to favor one content provider or Web site over another. If only for practical reasons, however, discrimination of this sort can take place. In order to manage the limited amount of available bandwidth, an operator might slow down a site that uses "too much" bandwidth. Proponents of net neutrality believe that this is unfair, and that limiting bandwidth can be accomplished on the user side, as is done in Australia, without directly punishing the provider.

Interestingly, the battle cry of innovation is heard from both proponents and opponents of net neutrality. Proponents believe that favoring certain applications can slow the adoption of newer, better ones. Even the World Wide Web itself might have been adopted sooner if not for the preference shown for Gopher, a network protocol that preceded the Web. Opponents claim that discrimination of this sort is unavoidable but benign; some packets of information have different latency requirements and must therefore be handled differently. The way to spur innovation, they say, is to minimize government interference, let telecoms and cable companies do what they do best—provide improved products at competitive prices—and let the market separate the winners from the losers.

Currently, the FCC can levy substantial fines for the abuse of the net neutrality principles. It remains to be seen whether the threat of these fines will be enough to ensure that the Internet will be perceived as a level playing field for providers and end users alike.

Q1 : The primary purpose of the passage is to _______.

a) argue for the expected effectiveness of a change in how the Internet is regulated
b) discuss some of the issues surrounding a controversial subject
c) elaborate on the technical matters relating to an issue that affects telecommunication companies
d) speculate on the future of an industry
e) summarize the legal arguments surrounding a hotly debated topic



Q2: According to the passage, proponents of net neutrality _______.

a) want network providers to give preference to data applications
b) were opposed to the FCC ruling that put an end to DSL services being controlled by common carrier regulations
c) have been successful in affecting policy in Australia
d) believe that it is acceptable to place limits on band width
e) are currently in favor of increasing regulatory limits on content providers



Q3 :According to the passage, some people believe that latency requirements _______.

a) tend to affect data applications more than video applications
b) were not an issue with Gopher
c) are an excuse for bandwidth discrimination
d) can slow innovation
e) are an unnecessary obstacle to making the Internet a level playing field



Q4: Which of the following best describes the author’s attitude toward the FCC’s decision?

a) Alarmed, but open-minded
b) Distrustful of both sides of the issue
c) Optimistic regarding the intent of the decision
d) Somewhat enthusiastic
e) Generally objective, though cautious