One
big issue that is rising in the courts today is net-neutrality. First topic is
what is net-neutrality? This is the idea that when information is being sent
over the network that no information will be sent at faster speeds or slower
speeds (Lin). The idea is the internet should be equally available to all
parties. The question is why is this an issue if it should make things equal.
The biggest issue that seems to arise is people thinking it will take away
their freedom on the internet (Lin). So now we have two sides to the argument
one saying net-neutrality will be a good idea in moderation. The other side
looking at the issue and saying that they don’t believe that the government can
tell them what they get on the internet.
So
let’s start with the first side of the argument for net neutrality. The biggest
reason for net neutrality in their mind is the equal access (Lin) The people
all deserve to have equal access to the same information at the same speed. The
positive they see with net-neutrality will be the lessening of the company oligopoly
(Lin). The idea that multiple companies are acting as door ways you need to go through
to get information. How is this a problem then don’t they always act in this
way? The apparent problem is that out of anyone being cheated it is the
consumer by the company. The issue is certain sites can get preferential
treatment trough a certain internet provider over another (Lin). So now think
of going on a site how do they get their information to you? They need someone
to go through for a connection to the consumer. Why is this an issue then? Well
people don’t want to pay more for services in the old system it allows the
services to pay for certain connections (Lin). The only issue is favoritism in
the business world. The one service could pay more to get a better connection.
This also stands true that if you can’t afford this connection then it will
worse service for the consumer. The internet is a system that needs some
regulation to survive in the new times (Wyatt, 2014). It seems that the
regulation side wants to see some system to protect the people. They don’t want
to see a crumbling of the new technology due to unequal access. The way the internet is not regulated now is
hurting one main audience the consumer (Lin).
Then
the argument of leaving the internet in its present state appears. The first
attempt at the net neutrality was the open internet policy. What is the open
internet policy this was the courts attempt to allow for an equal internet
(Marquez, 2014). The main issue is there is already so many that have such an
issue with the policy. They feel that this open internet is just the same plan
with another name it seems. Another issue that seems to be apparent is that the
industry is already successful so why does it need regulation (Marquez, 2014).
People don’t want to see changes that will effect our internet usage. Then the
idea of making third party companies pay for the difference was also unheard of
to the companies (Internet regulation, 2014). Companies then would have to make
up for the difference to allow the consumer the equal access. So why would this
be an issue if the company pays the difference? Well as mentioned before no one
likes to pay more money for a product. Many think that this plan would increase
the cost of services on the consumer. These are just a couple of different
arguments about why not to regulate the internet.
So
the arguments are similar in certain ways. They seem to both bring up the issue
of the cost on the consumer. They also seem to have some worry on the idea of
government regulation. The biggest similarity between the two different
arguments is that people want their freedom while using the internet. The
arguments also have their differences in who they seem to be worried about. In
the regulation side they are worried about the consumer mainly which they seem
to direct their argument at. Then in the con side they seem to be more direct
on the benefit of how companies will provide service. The biggest idea is that
the regulation argument looks at the non-regulation and does acknowledge the
cons, but rebuttals. The con will not acknowledge the plan and seems to talk
nothing about possible benefits. In the end it seems both arguments are to
serve the public, but in different ways. The regulation side wants to see the
consumer protected. The non-regulation side wants to see the companies protect
as well as the consumer in certain areas.
Works Cited
Internet Regulation Not neutrality (2014). Internet Regulation Not neutrality. Retrieved
from: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/01/internet-regulation
Marquez, Jose (2014). Opinion: Battle over Internet regulations is the civil rights struggle
of the 21st century. Retrieved from: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2014/09/25/opinion-open internet-principles make-sense-for-all-consumers/
Lin, Ray. Network
Neutrality. Retrieved from: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/whatisnetneutrality.htm
Wayatt, Edward (2014). Perspective from both sides
of his desk fcc chairman ponders net neutrality.
Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/business/with perspective-from-both sides-of-his-desk-fcc-chairman-ponders-net-neutrality.html?_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment