This Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal net neutrality rules.
In 2015, net neutrality established internet service as a utility, preventing internet service providers from discriminating among web content by blocking certain sites or slowing the speed at which they load in addition to preventing them from providing faster internet service to customers who pay more. Yesterday's repeal removes all that regulation.
Supporters of net neutrality argue the end of net neutrality could lead to a future of internet service that privileges large companies and the wealthy. They fear services providers may start providing "bundles" like cable providers, requiring you to pay extra for certain sites, something that is already happening in Portugal. Small business owners are also concerned that they'll be more easily out-competed by larger corporations that can afford to pay for their sites to load faster if ISPs start offering priority to higher paying customers. However, Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, argues that these fears are unfounded. Before net neutrality was established, none of these problems existed and, as it ends now, major ISPs are reassuring the public they do not intend to change the way they provide internet.
Pai argues that deregulation of this market will foster increased competition, giving companies incentive to provide internet to more people. His critics point out that the market for internet service is highly consolidated and lacks competition, suggesting deregulation may be an opening for abuses instead of a jump-start to the competition of the market
Unfortunately, until the changes caused by repealing net neutrality come to pass, the consequences - or lack thereof - for repealing it are uncertain.
Questions:
1. Do you support or oppose the repeal of net neutrality?
2. Can we trust large corporations when they assure us the internet will continue to run as usual?
3. Are people's fears about the end of net neutrality reasonable?
Links:
New York Times: 1 and 2
Fox News
Image Source
28 comments:
I think we can't trust large corporations to make sure our internet runs the same because they would be controlling us. Like they could manage what we see and how fast apps and such are. I believe everyone deserves to have the right to use apps they want to for free. I also believe our internet should remain how it is. I don't think anyone should have the right to be controlled.
I believe that net neutrality should stay because I honestly don't see how allowing internet providers to regulate their content is a good idea, since it seems to give them way too much power to manipulate the user, even though they did say they wouldn't do so. As time progresses, if internet providers continue to have this much power, there is nothing stopping them from ignoring their words and spiking up prices. For this reason, people's fears of the negative consequences of ending net neutrality are completely justified in my opinion.
Even though I don't know too much about net neutrality and agree with the comments above, I can also see the other side of things. As Pai stated, there is no evidence to prove that the repeal of net neutrality will cause huge changes or effects. There's an innate distrust of large corporations and it's easy to distrust them and assume they will manipulate the market for themselves. This is a naive stance, but maybe we need to put some trust in them and not make assumptions until we actually see what effects this appeal has. In a NY Times article, they mentioned that large companies such as Amazon already control so much: shopping, video streaming, cloud storage, etc. so in that case, didn't these large companies already have lots of control before net neutrality was repealed?
I think that net neutrality rules should not have been repealed, because internet regulations, like Miwa mentions, are inherently biased to the rich and the famous. Large corporations will likely take over and smaller corporations are going to suffer more. This seems like it may have devastating effects to the economy as most small companies that can't afford to have their pages run as quickly as others. Slow internet speed is something that most people in America hate and are unwilling to deal with, so people will probably gravitate toward the websites that run faster, and smaller companies/pages that run slower will lose viewers and lose money. The only way to prevent it seems to be to pay that price for fast internet that may not be affordable for some, and it seems like the internet is going to turn into a giant economic disaster. I also enjoyed having access to websites at the same speed, and the idea of parts of the internet not being "free and open" is unfavorable. I do have hope that this repeal will be overturned. Most Americans (83%) support the net neutrality rules, and lawyers are likely to sue the decision made by 3 people for 323 million people whose majority opinion they don't even represent.
I agree with many of the commenters above. It seems to me that despite there being no precedent for big business abusing a lack of net neutrality that doesn't mean that it's something that is impossible, or even improbable. I think many assume the end of net neutrality will lend itself to bias in favor of bigger, wealthier companies because there is very little talk about any other reason behind ending it. Pai argues that the deregulation of the market will increase competition and mean that more access to the internet, but just like there being no evidence for abuse of the system there is no evidence that this will be what happens in reality either. I personally think that because this deregulation makes it POSSIBLE for big companies to abuse the system, it is a bad idea and bad legislature that we should not implement. Perhaps it is because I am speaking without any sort of expertise on the subject, but I don't understand how ending net neutrality could benefit the majority of people.
Internet, in my opinion, should be equally accessible for everyone. Repealing net neutrality regulations essentially allow for privatization of the internet, which ought to be a public resource. The internet provides infinite means of communication and research, making it a crucial factor for success in today's high-tech world. We cannot trust the reassurances of large companies because they are clearly biased, benefiting from their financial advantage over smaller companies. The fears associated with ending net neutrality are certainly valid, as companies are more likely to target wealthier clientele.
I believe that the net neutrality rules should not have been repealed. This seems like a case of the government just supporting big business. Even though, it will probably not affect me directly right now, in the long term, it will make internet prices to go up. By letting certain internet providers control the speed of certain sites, this "increase in competition" that the FCC uses tho justify their actions will just increase the price for consumers. I believe that they are actually not thinking about the long term consequences, and solely about how to make these large businesses happier.
I'll be basic and agree with everyone too. When I get on the internet I think of it like walking into a library where whatever book you want will be placed right in front of your face in an instant. Why should I have to pay to look at some books and not others? Why should some books take longer to arrive when they don't have to? Removing net neutrality is like (to continue the book analogy) charging people money to enter certain parts of the library. And the big businesses will get to decide which parts and how much you have to pay. I'm not sure how that is good for anyone except for maybe the owners of the business that charges people.
I do not think that the net neutrality act should have been repealed. Like Diana said, the internet should be accessible for everyone and taking it away would not be fair to the majority of people. The internet has become an essential part of our lives and has progressed society tremendously. I don't think that we can trust big corporations to run the internet in the same way. Net neutrality has made it possible for many innovators to succeed and repealing it seems like it would do more harm than good.
I don't think Neutrality should have been discontinued. It give to much power to the big phone and internet companies and ultimately, is just going to make them richer. I would also like to note that the head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, used to work for Verizon, one of the four major networks in America. Net Neutrality has provided us with equal access to the internet, as well as actually more competition, as smaller network carriers have grown over time and competed for consumers with the big businesses. In the end, this ultimately seemed to be for benefiting the big, rich businesses.
Now, one of my favorite things about this blog is th
"Your free trial of this service has ended. Please pay for the package to continue using this"
Personally, I oppose the repeal of net neutrality. While Pai may claim that the assertion of abuses being more likely to occur due to deregulation of the industry is unfounded, I am a major proponent of Murphy's Law, the belief that something that can go wrong, WILL go wrong. Subsequently, I feel with this deregulation, there is little to stop ISPs from taking advantage of being able to charge consumers more for existing packages. Furthermore, the fact that Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T support the repeal scares me as a consumer with no other ISP to turn to and further validates the fears of others should all three corporations decide to overcharge customers.
I oppose the repeal of net neutrality. I believe that the internet should be readily available and accessible to all. As we have seen many times before, the American people can no longer have trust in larger corporations which often prioritize profit of the benefit of their customers. However, this increase in price and decrease in accessibility could lead to a decrease in profits by some large corporations. Due to that loss of profits, it is possible that large corporations could oppose the decision and fight against its repeal. Another possible result of this repeal would be the larger turn out of younger voters, who are much more involved with the services that the FCC will effect. In my opinion, this repeal of net neutrality should spark a realization of its importance, and therefore its possible re-introduction.
Although I oppose the repeal of net neutrality, I know little how this will actually impact internet users on a daily basis. This could go either way, help us or go against us. Yet, I do believe that if big business were to take control of the internet, that it could have horrible consequences for all. The internet is such a crucial resource, it allows everyone the opportunity to learn and the human race must continue to excel. Without equal resources for all, there is no equality to pursue knowledge.
I do oppose the repeal of net neutrality, and I think people´s fear is completely reasonable. Although it´s true that no changes have actually been made yet in consequences of the repeal, there is still a very high possibility that there will be changes. As everyone said, it seems as though this bill is favoring the wealthy and big businesses, and once these big businesses become more accustomed to the idea that they have an incredible amount of power that they can potentially take advantage of, they just might. It´s true that everything is fine now, but with the power we are giving internet providers, there is a chance that it will not be soon. Everyone deserves to have readily available and accessible internet, and nobody will feel comfortable knowing it can always be monitored and restricted. People pay for their internet, so they should be able to use it freely without worrying about restrictions or monitoring for the same price. The creation of the possibility of changes reasonably makes many fearful.
I oppose the repeal of net neutrality and believe that it's fine for people to be scared. If they know that his will help big businesses it's reasonable. The internet has made a huge impact on society as a whole and by doing this, it could harm it.
I strongly oppose the appeal of net neutrality. I understand that corporations want to increase competition on the internet, as it is a huge platform for business and they want more control over it, but I do not believe that they have the right to regulate what we, the citizens, have access to. The internet is not only a place for businesses, and I don't think the FCC recognizes that. It is a platform for everyday people to expand and share their views with others, and a free and open internet is not just a debate over how much we should pay for the internet. I think that the repeal of net neutrality is part of an even larger issue- free speech on the internet. I believe that the websites someone visits, the shows someone watches, the opinions someone expresses on social media, and the search engines people use are as inherent to the first amendment as the freedom to wear or say whatever you want. By making people pay for use of the internet, regulating the speed and availability of certain ISPs, we are letting corporations censor our opinions. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment- the American people have a right, under the constitution, to do what they wish to on the internet. Monetizing this action puts people from socio-economic backgrounds at a disadvantage- if they cannot pay for the internet, they cannot express their opinions to the same extent of people from upperclass backgrounds. Limiting anyones right to freedom of speech is a disgusting overreach by corporations. I honestly believe that someone should sue the FCC for violating the First Amendment, but that's just my opinion.
I strongly oppose repealing net neutrality and believe we cannot trust large corporations. People's fears are completely reasonable, although, there is a lot of misinformation out there which may heighten those fears. Therefore, it is important to truly analyze the issue and understand that the process of repealing net neutrality is NOT over! The case still needs to go through court so there is still hope. Repealing net neutrality will only benefit large corporations who are only interested in money, not how this will affect the people.
Obviously, I believe in net neutrality and don't believe the corporations can be trusted. However, I do think that people are making a big deal out of, well not nothing, but people are making it a bigger deal than it should be. Our government, if you remember, has checks and balances. The Supreme Court first has to decide if the repeal of net neutrality is constitutional. Given that the court decreed placing net neutrality under Title II in the first place would be constitutional, I doubt they'd say it's constitutional to undo that.
Secondly, there is currently a bill in the House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee specifically about maintaining net neutrality in the US. If the Supreme Court fails us, we do have this.
I oppose repealing net neutrality because of the damage it will do to regular citizens. Repealing net neutrality will only benefit larger cooperations, and leave the rest of us in debt for knowledge. Our generation has become so used to the internet at our fingertips and having google charge $1.99 per search will really hurt America.
I agree with everyone above in that I do not agree with the repeal of net neutrality. It may be cynical, but I do not trust large corporations to keep providing the same services as they have before without any additional charges. It is ridiculous how so many people have been opposed to the repeal, yet nothing was done about it. Their opinions and attempts to reach out to politicians were pushed aside. Even with the overwhelming support from the American citizens to continue net neutrality, the repeal was still passed. I had believed the large corporations were performing very well with the easy accessibility, and gaining revenue from ads and such. With a decrease in accessibility, I feel as if less people would be willing to pay for those services and that would interfere with their success. I do believe the people are justified in their fears about the end in net neutrality, making it more difficult to access many things we have had before.
I am opposed to the repeal of net neutrality which continues the common trend above. I believe it gives large corporations too much power to provide additional charges to internet which is a commodity most people rely on. Net Neutrality doesn’t allow internet service providers from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, apps or websites you want to use so of course people would want that. There has been a widely circulated tweet that shows that 17 states are already planning to sue fcc for this. Repealing net neutrality is unfair in my opinion and I agree that people would be unwilling to pay for those extra services. The good thing, though, is that this case needs to go to court because it could be perceived as unconstitutional because internet providers are such a big commodity. I think that this idea of larger corporations having the power to make us pay for internet usage censors the public's thought which infringes on our constitutional right to freedom of expression under the first amendment. The internet is used for a multitude of things like business and networking. Giving internet providers this power scares me because everyone deserves to have accessible internet, and restricting that privilege will make the public very uncomfortable .
I completely oppose the repeal of Net Neutrality. I think this is the one thing that almost everyone in America can agree on these days. In fact I don't believe that anyone really trusts the ISPs to provide us with the service we need without these rules. If this decision stands, and I give it a small but significant chance to do so, our internet bills will likely turn into cable TV bills where you have to pay for a package of different websites or even servers that those sites are hosted on and we will be limited to what the companies want us to see. In the end it will probably just turn into the entertainment industry with companies fighting over which content they own and trying to give themselves an advantage over minimal competition while still providing expensive and unreliable service. I honestly don't know what the Republicans are doing trying to ram through all these highly unpopular measures right before an election, especially one where historical trends show they will almost certainly lose seats. I hope that congress and especially the Republicans see the sense to revoke this change using the Congressional Review Act, which would only require a 50% majority vote by a joint session of congress (within sixty workdays of the executive decision).
I oppose the repeal of the net neutrality act because I believe that the internet is what allowed lower class people to gain access to knowledge and other information they might not have been able to acquire otherwise. I think Haley has a good point because I also read an article saying that there may not be any major changes and if there are lawsuits may ensue. However, I am unsure if we can trust large corporations completely because we are so addicted and dependent on the internet that they know we will continue to pay the price even if they increase it.
I think that the repeal of net neutrality is a negative thing. I think that the internet is a necessity to most people to gain access to information and current events, as well as enjoy entertainment and social network with others. I think that large companies are going to use this decision to make more profit on internet use, and the chances that they can limit use of certain sites is frightening.I think the government should have listened to the people, because a large majority opposed repealing net neutrality.
This was obviously heavily lobbied for by multiple interest groups. They all wanted to reap the profits of crushing the everyday man. It is quite sad that the FCC has taken a stance that has made the internet so popular. Come on now, we are the US not China.
I oppose of the repeal of the net neutrality. I don't see any sort of benefits to having large corporations having more control over the internet than they already have. The fear is within reason as it involves an everyday item (the internet) that is being effected greatly.
I disagree with repealing net neutrality because I feel like the internet has always been a place where people feel free to explore what they want. These changes in the way we can use the internet feels very restrictive. Hopefully we will not see too big of a difference online and if there is people and the government will respond to protect our rights.
Post a Comment