Article Link
The U.S Federal Communications Commission is starting a vote to kill off net neutrality in the following month. Now, you may be asking yourself, what is net neutrality. Well, I'll save you a google search (I'll try). Net neutrality is the concept that all information on the net should be easily accessible. What this means, is that government should not allow companies to charge for access to certain websites. Not denying access per say, but slowing the bandwidth, or the speed to them. To those who constantly use YouTube, Google, or similar websites, we could be charged more.
The article states that the Trump administration wants to roll back these net neutrality supportive rules from Obama's era, stating that they are too burdensome.
Obviously, the damage is clear to us who use internet from home. The article also mentions, that it will hurt businesses who use the internet. As we become more advanced, businesses utilize sites in selling their products. Limiting user access would hurt their revenue.
Such a devastating blow to free internet isn't left unanswered however. Grassroots efforts have sprung up across the web in effort to help net neutrality survive. For instance, sites like these have popped up, encouraging users to call congress members to help stop the vote. Mass outrage on reddit as well, people want their free internet.
So what do I think about all this? Net neutrality will greatly let the public suffer. Companies will definitely benefit. In my opinion, if America wanted to hold up it's free market capitalistic value, they should definitely destroy net neutrality. We all know that America doesn't truly have a free market anyways though... So perhaps keeping it up is better. Well who knows. An article from the Hill suggests that these rules will hurt small businesses as mentioned above. I really don't see how it hurts them to a debilitating degree though. At worst, they are going to have to pay more bucks to have internet companies to promote fast use. Though is having a slow connection to a new business really going to murder your income? Maybe. Maybe if it took a year to connect. I could definitely see how it could hurt, but at the same time, I have doubts that it actually will hurt most starting businesses. Personally, if I thought your business had something really attractive to me, I wouldn't mind a couple extra seconds. Another possible benefit from the article is more data plans. The way that this works, from my understanding, is that big companies that have money give money to service providers in hopes of getting free data use for users. This would, in turn, encourage users to use their sites I assume. Now while this may seem like a good deal for the populace, I doubt it will be good in the long run. I'd really rather not have a couple of powerful companies constantly in power in which people use their sites. I think it would be hard for new things to come up, everyone is accessing the same sites. In a way, a restriction on the free market with the monopoly. I suppose overall, net neutrality may bring some benefits, but having an internet where everything is controlled is the exact opposite of what most people want.
Discussion:
Should Net neutrality exist? Is it too harsh of a restriction on companies like Comcast?
10 comments:
Net neutrality ought to persist within our society. In particular, I believe that if the Supreme Court were to hear a case against net neutrality, the court would support the rights of the website, who have the right to free speech and should be able to display their webpage contents without being purposefully slowed down. Since I was still confused as to what the advantages of net neutrality are, I did a google search on the topic. I found that proponents of net neutrality have many arguments to bolster their opinion, including the fact that Internet users favor fast-loading websites (and therefore avoid slower ones), and that without net neutrality, Internet providers would favor their own Internet protocols over those of their competitors. In order to maintain impartiality, net neutrality ought to be maintained in the United States.
I'm amazed that this doesn't have as much awareness as it should. Imagine if companies like Comcast or ATT made packages for internet like they do for TV? Something like this https://imgur.com/Rizj4Z5 would be very possible if NN is abolished.
Internet service providers will be able to suppress access to content they don't like, effectively granting them the ability to censor whatever we read. Big ISPs could block out smaller, grassroots companies in favor of big businesses. Net Neutrality ensures that fresh ideas and up-and-coming sites have the opportunity to grow on a even playing field. We need net neutrality for the future of online entrepreneurship and free speech.
Just to plug, but if you want to protest, here's how you can: https://www.battleforthenet.com/
It's seriously saddening how these large corporations have such a grasp on the government and have no regard for the public, and probably even sadder how the average congressman doesn't even know what the internet is aside from it being a "series of tubes." The vote has been rescheduled to December and we should all look to call our congress representative telling them that they better vote their asses against this killing of net neutrality.
Net neutrality is super important. So many people (for good or for evil) get all of their information from the internet. If powerful companies had the power to influence what sites people use regularly, and who has access to what, the results would be devastating. Net neutrality gives everyone the equal chance to publish and promote content on the internet, be it cat videos or important warnings about the danger of global warming. The idea of big industry being able to push out these smaller efforts is scary, and that is why net neutrality must persist.
I do not believe that the government should impose rules on net neutrality. Millions of people use the internet, fueling millions of websites and businesses online. By making their platform harder to access, the government would hurt these businesses, and since so much business takes place on the internet, it would ultimately hurt the economy. Additionally, the internet is a source of free speech and expression, and the government would be taking that away from people who are unable to afford the price. People who need the internet to complete school work or other important tasks, but would be unable to afford the price of the internet, wouldn't be able to keep up with classes or work. Keeping the internet a free and open space without government intervention is very important, and we should do all we can to prevent it from happening.
Net neutrality isn't "the concept that all information on the net should be easily accessible". It's a regulation currently in place that mandates that all service providers treat all traffic the same.
One side of me wants to believe that without net neutrality the internet would become a dystopia where the internet becomes paid TV and there's no room for new business to prop up. But if getting rid of net neutrality is some sort of corporate plan to make huge cash, why are huge companies, like Google who could pay ISPs to prioritize their content, for net neutrality? It's because net neutrality is akin to forcing the mail delivery to deliver envelopes and packages at the same speed. If youtube is sucking up bandwidth, an ISP has to either slow down all traffic or ramp up their own infrastructure, rather than it being on youtube to up theirs.
I don't think it's in an ISP's interest to charge us for the most popular websites like pay tv either. If a customer primarily uses netflix, it would be cheaper for the customer to only pay for netflix.com. An ISP would like to charge them for the whole web, not just the few sites they use.
At the end of the day, I don't think this issue is corporations v. democracy, I think there are better solutions to letting people have open, cheap, and fast access to the web.
I do not think that net neutrality should be imposed. It is important that people get to have their freedom on the internet. Killing Net Neutrality would cause tremendous outrage by a majority of internet users. The destruction of Net Neutrality will only cause a disaster and in a democracy I do not see why this should pass. In the end net neutrality is ended, internet users will be the losers and ISPs will be the winners. Big businesses will pay the ISPs to prioritize their content and customers will pay for the services. Like Genevieve said the internet is a place of free expression and charging for the certain websites may make internet access harder for certain people.
So much of what we do today is dependent on the internet and having access to it; whether it's for school work, staying informed, or communicating with other people, the internet plays a large role in our increasingly technology-dependent society. Thus, it would be detrimental if the FCC tried to kill off net neutrality. We've already seen what has happened without net neutrality rules - some corporations like AT&T and Verizon have used their power to censor "controversial" people and groups, and have even used these rules (or the lack thereof) to benefit themselves financially. Without net neutrality rules, Congress puts at risk our First Amendment rights in both direct and indirect ways. The "open internet" standard we have now has helped strengthen our democratic values, but these are being put at risk with the FCC threatening to kill off net neutrality.
Getting rid of net neutrality leaves the market more vulnerable to decreased competitiveness. Because telecom companies would be free to charge for faster speed service, larger sites can block out emerging competitors and startups because of access to more money. And since there are so few telecom providers, it is hard to maintain competition, and avoid an oligopoly. Additionally, increased costs may be transferred over to the consumer, adding costs on top of current fees for services. I think net neutrality has to stay in place in order to ensure a competitive market that serves the consumer.
As an internet user, I am all for net neutrality, as seem to be most people. A couple of people above seem a bit confused on what the issue is, however. Net neutrality as it is only exists because of government regulations. It is the removal of these regulations that is being proposed.
I understand the other side of the argument. My father, a Republican, is against government-required net neutrality, though he agrees that cable-like internet would be less than ideal. His perspective on the issue is that if our internet service provider starts charging for different packages of websites, we would switch to a different provider and thus allow the market, rather than the government, to enforce net neutrality.
My issue with this is that I worry about what will happen if all major service providers eliminate net neutrality. That is why I am against the removal of the internet from falling under Title II.
Post a Comment