In the realm of our freedoms I would have to say that the beneficial reasons for net neutrality outweigh the detrimental consequences, if there exists any detriment at all. The arguments for net neutrality, essentially, are that it encourages innovation, promotes free speech, as well as protects consumer choices. The petition to clearly define these rights as law has been in much dispute over the years, critics of net neutrality argue that the government has no right to interfere with how online businesses distribute their services to their consumers. Online companies says that it is an issue of free-enterprise, that as individual businesses, these network providers have the right to decide how they are going to charge their consumers.
Net neutrality has most recently been in the news in regards to Netflix. Because their services are intertwined within the web of competition, particularly with cable companies, cable companies, such as verizon and comcast, exerted the right to diminish the quality and speed in which netflix streams their media. This, of course, was unless Netflix compromised, in "peering" with comcast, paying to keep the quality of their service, reaching a deal with various cable providers. Instead of plummeting, the stock for Netflix unexpectedly skyrocketed. This is where the loophole lays. While all companies are expected to provide consumers with equal access to the internet, there is no mention against this so called "peering" of network and cable providers.
The issue of net neutrality is enveloped in concerns of freedom of speech because it enables companies to monitor consumer access to certain sites, and thus consumer input. Many European nations have completely given up on net neutrality and adopted the opposite ideal. Without open internet, companies could have the right to inhibit our access to certain publications, a form of censorship that seems rather archaic in the context of modern American society.
The recent news about net neutrality affects me (the average consumer), in the aspect that I could be expected to pay for a service that has always been available to me free of charge. Service providers would have the right to play favorites, thus limiting my access (or slowing the search process) to certain mediums that serve as a source of competition, or giving higher priority to a consumer who is able to afford paying more than me for a "more ideal" service experience. Essentially, it all comes down to my time and money, two things that the average citizen values a great deal.
My opinion on the whole ordeal is that, in America, we are given a great deal of freedoms. And yes, perhaps we are given too many, perhaps we take much of them for granted. However, I do not believe in going backwards. In appealing the idea of internet equality, we are essentially taking away a basic freedom to not only entertaining content, but also information, that we, as American citizens have always had the right to. The competition between service providers seems as if it could eventually turn into a corrupt and flawed system of "choosing the lesser of two evils" on behalf of the consumer. The expense of the internet could stop many from accessing it altogether, the internet, an entity, I now believe, that many of us would simply not be able to live without. I pity those in other countries who are censored by their governments, and those who fall victim to the power of major corporations. The idea of redacting the open internet threatens the very idea of democracy.
1. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2009/10/why-the-future-of-online-speech-depends-on-net-neutrality302/
........This article talks about the censorship of the internet in other countries and the idea of this being, a significant step backward in terms of basic human freedoms. It ties in quite nicely with how a world without the internet equality impedes on freedom of speech. It also provides firsthand perspectives on the embedded video which I thought to be very intriguing and valid.
2. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2014/01/net-neutrality-and-freedom-of-the-press-in-a-digital-age/
.........This article, similar to the above article has everything to do with the first amendment. While issues on net neutrality govern freedom of speech, they also govern freedom of the press. PBS further narrated a perspective on the FCC's decisions. It articulates that local news sites can be monitored for content in the same way as media sites, limiting the stories that appear (perhaps even censoring them), leaving the public misinformed. The power to change entertainment is one thing, but going as far to censor news stations, borders on dictatorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment