Reading 09: Network Neutrality
The argument of net neutrality seems to boil down to the classic argument of free markets vs. monitored ones. On the one side a free market promotes healthy competition which ultimately benefits the consumers with better, faster working products, and lower prices. But if any of these competitors becomes too large and too powerful, monopolies on the market throw all fairness and equality out of line. This can also harm consumers in immense ways. The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) get to decide based on their opinions, where the fastest and best delivered internet should be. In doing so they control an immense amount of what content is delivered, and this in no way promotes freedom for the consumer.
Net Neutrality, What you need to know states, "No company should be allowed to interfere with this open marketplace. ISPs are the internet’s gatekeepers, and without Net Neutrality, they would seize every possible opportunity to profit from that gatekeeper position."
Net Neutrality, What you need to know states, "No company should be allowed to interfere with this open marketplace. ISPs are the internet’s gatekeepers, and without Net Neutrality, they would seize every possible opportunity to profit from that gatekeeper position."
There is a major concern that large internet providers could squelch any competition before it even gets off the ground. This destruction of open competition in the web space would be a huge hit for America. If an internet provider like Comcast had some direct lines of competition with Netflix (lets say an NBC and DreamWorks streaming platform which Comcast owns) they could ruin Netflix's chances of ever making it off the ground as a company. These levels of influence asking for corruption. The very purpose of the internet is that it is the place you can go to escape "the man". Also known as the giant corporations which push political agendas amongst other things. Anyone who has watched CNN and Fox News cover the same news story should agree that there are large differences in news delivery motives. As of now the internet feels like a safe space from this control, and I would like to keep it that way.
I agree with this statement from Net Neutrality, What you need to know, "Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online." The internet is supposed to be a place where all ideas can be shared equally, for better or worse. That is what it was fundamentally built on and it needs to remain that way.
One of the stronger arguments for allowing ISPs to use their own discretion is that of any free market argument, promotion of investments and economic growth. In a recent article discussing the FCCs debate on the issue it reads, "According to one estimate by the nonprofit Free State Foundation, Title II has already cost our country $5.1 billion in broadband capital investment. And given the multiplier effect from such spending that means Title II has already cost our nation approximately 75,000 to 100,000 jobs. However, he stops there, and I am left confused as to how deregulating ISPs leads to more jobs. The better argument seems to be that allowing for full equality in the web space allows small business owners and new companies to thrive in a space where large corporations cannot squelch their efforts.
The economical boom comes from companies like Google, Amazon, and Netflix who provide services on the internet and thrive in doing so when they have the utmost freedom. The scare tactics in opposition to net neutrality are trying to work people into a frenzy about loss of freedom saying things like, "Did you feel a sudden loss of Internet freedom in February 2015? That's when the Federal Communications Commission imposed net neutrality rules that prevent Internet Service Providers from discriminating against websites and other online services. And that's when Americans lost their Internet freedom--according to the current FCC chairman Ajit Pai".
This is SO ILLOGICAL. This would be like making the argument that Donald Trump can only stay in office for maximum two terms, which is an outright denial of his freedom. He should be able to dictate. There is freedom. And there is also regulation to protect freedom. If the internet is allowed to make power plays against people and form monopolies then consumers lose freedom. So Donald Trump should not be allowed more than two terms, and the ISPs should not be allowed to decide who they provide good internet to. Sometimes regulations are needed to protect the long term freedom of the consumer.
x
I agree with this statement from Net Neutrality, What you need to know, "Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online." The internet is supposed to be a place where all ideas can be shared equally, for better or worse. That is what it was fundamentally built on and it needs to remain that way.
One of the stronger arguments for allowing ISPs to use their own discretion is that of any free market argument, promotion of investments and economic growth. In a recent article discussing the FCCs debate on the issue it reads, "According to one estimate by the nonprofit Free State Foundation, Title II has already cost our country $5.1 billion in broadband capital investment. And given the multiplier effect from such spending that means Title II has already cost our nation approximately 75,000 to 100,000 jobs. However, he stops there, and I am left confused as to how deregulating ISPs leads to more jobs. The better argument seems to be that allowing for full equality in the web space allows small business owners and new companies to thrive in a space where large corporations cannot squelch their efforts.
The economical boom comes from companies like Google, Amazon, and Netflix who provide services on the internet and thrive in doing so when they have the utmost freedom. The scare tactics in opposition to net neutrality are trying to work people into a frenzy about loss of freedom saying things like, "Did you feel a sudden loss of Internet freedom in February 2015? That's when the Federal Communications Commission imposed net neutrality rules that prevent Internet Service Providers from discriminating against websites and other online services. And that's when Americans lost their Internet freedom--according to the current FCC chairman Ajit Pai".
This is SO ILLOGICAL. This would be like making the argument that Donald Trump can only stay in office for maximum two terms, which is an outright denial of his freedom. He should be able to dictate. There is freedom. And there is also regulation to protect freedom. If the internet is allowed to make power plays against people and form monopolies then consumers lose freedom. So Donald Trump should not be allowed more than two terms, and the ISPs should not be allowed to decide who they provide good internet to. Sometimes regulations are needed to protect the long term freedom of the consumer.
x
Comments
Post a Comment