The question of whether the absence of net neutrality is better for the United States can only be tested one way; to try it out. Net neutrality is turning into a highly debated topic of big business versus small business. What is better for America? Is it wrong for Wal-Mart’s to take over small businesses? No one truly knows the answer, which is why there is only one way to find out as stated previously.
The opposition to net neutrality was inevitable. Wherever there is an opportunity to make money, businesses will try to capitalize, especially big businesses. The internet has lead to overwhelming innovation especially economically speaking starting in the late 1990’s. These innovations, which have taken on the monster called “copyright,” have obviously taken money away from big business. Finally the big businesses fight back. They may have the resources, but they sure don’t have the man power. The majority of the U.S. public backs small businesses over big businesses as we have seen countless times in political speeches representing the middle class. In order for the opponents of net neutrality to achieve success in eliminating it, they must go through the politicians in all fifty states. As we all know the politicians usually side with the citizens, which is why opponents of net neutrality have a big fight ahead of them.
Those who oppose net neutrality are the big phone and cable communication companies, who offer internet services to customers for a monthly fee. They argue that media files such as videos on google and yahoo clog up the information super highway known as the internet. This obviously can lead to viruses, unwanted spam and so on, which causes slower internet access for large companies. The communication companies argue that they built and ran these network lines so they should have the right to control the internet. Their right would be to make more money by offering those companies who can pay the most to have greater internet access and speed over a typical household consumer. This would obviously give an enormous advantage to large companies over small businesses. So the question that most of the United States would like truthfully answered is are the big businesses opposed to net neutrality because of viruses and spam or are they really in it for more money?
The proponents of net neutrality argue that equal access to the internet for all is what has lead to so much innovation and creativity. Without equal access, freedoms and innovation are obviously limited. Proponents argue the reason large communication companies want to eliminate net neutrality is so they can eliminate their competition; and they can do this because they will have control over the internet. They will function as internet police controlling what information you can view or through which service you can view it. Sadly, it’s all about money, which unfortunately isn’t a new concept in the business world, which is why I stated previously that this whole scenario was inevitable. Democratic representative Louise Slaughter is a strong advocate of net neutrality and states (on the bill against net neutrality) “it is a bill written by and for a limited number of companies that are already wildly profitable. Also they can make even more money and the American people will pay the price. This bill will limit online opportunities.” http://youtube.com/watch?v=qJ3zcmPUvRo&mode=related&search=
As for my opinion, I side with net neutrality because laws put into place to oppose net neutrality will only benefit the few. Although, I feel that the reasons for opposition to net neutrality provided by large communication companies is not very insightful. I would like to hear more reasoning behind this and specific examples of negative scenarios that are possible if net neutrality continues. I personally think that without net neutrality, the internet won’t be as interactive as it is today. There won’t be any more web 2.0. This is a way for people in power to remove their threats and widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The more people become aware of net neutrality, the better chance we have to fight this in congress.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Alex, I work on this issue with the Hands Off the Internet coalition and will gladly give you some information and articles to read regarding why people are opposing proposed "net neutrality" regulations.
First, this isn't a big vs. small business issue at all, contrary to what some net neutrality proponents claim. Some of the strongest supporters of net neutrality are companies like Google, Amazon and Yahoo, not exactly you mom & pop corner stores.
Second, the net has never been "neutral" and in fact net neutrality has never applied to cable broadband connections, which account for about 60% of all broadband connections. It isn't a founding principle of the internet as many people claim.
I would urge you to take a look at this article from the Guardian. The telcos aren't going to control what content and applications you and I use but they do need the ability to prioritize IPTV and VoIP traffic over emails. Proposed regulations would prohibit this activity.
"No one disagrees that America's biggest phone companies are moving into the TV business as rivals to the cable companies. It's an expensive gamble: Verizon has spent $20bn on new fibre infrastructure to deliver 100megabit per second connections into the home. No one disagrees either that today's internet is inadequate for this kind of video service. Verizon and AT&T don't need the bandwidth so much as they need to control the quality of the connection: video is sensitive to delay, and what engineers call "jitter", while email and web pages aren't."
The article also highlights why many of the most senior network engineers, such as Robert Kahn, are warning against "net neutrality." The net has never been neutral.
"Neutrality would have made designing a better internet much harder, says the man commonly described as the father of the internet.
Dr Robert Kahn says that Neutrality legislation poses a fundamental threat to internet research because it misunderstands what the internet really is; it's a network of networks, and experimentation on private networks must be encouraged."The internet has never been neutral," explains Crowcroft. "Without traffic shaping, we won't get the convergence that allows the innovation on TV and online games that we've seen in data and telephony."
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2049763,00.html
Here is an editorial from a few more credible sources on the subject, Michale Katz and David Farber, who also are warning about "net neutrality" and the negative implications it has for anyone who uses the net.
"Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender's willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customers.
Traffic management is a prime example. When traffic surges beyond the ability of the network to carry it, something is going to be delayed. When choosing what gets delayed, it makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from, say, a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms and spam.
Pricing raises similar issues. To date, Internet pricing has been relatively simple. Based on experience in similar markets, we expect that, if left alone, pricing and service models will probably evolve. For example, new services with guaranteed delivery quality might emerge to support applications such as medical monitoring that require higher levels of reliability than the current Internet can guarantee. Suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html
Post a Comment