I've got a special post for all of you. I figure since you use the internet you should be updated on the latest happenings.
There’s an issue that affects every man, woman, and child who uses the internet. The issue is known as “Network Neutrality,” (a.k.a. “Net Neutrality) and it is basically the nondiscriminatory principle that is currently at the foundation of the internet as we know it. The issue is becoming a large topic around the tables of major telecommunication companies. Currently it appears to be a battle between the internet consumers, who are in favor of Net Neutrality, and major corporations like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner. However, it is not just internet consumers that are in favor of Net Neutrality, leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Skype and Yahoo are also large supporters.
The leading arguments supporting Net Neutrality focus on the idea that free speech will be affected and discrimination will run rampant amongst the competitive telecom companies. Moreover, the internet will be run by the economic elite and most content providers will not be able to afford the “tollgates ” that would be implemented for faster internet service. Mark Evans, Net Neutrality supporter, argues that “companies will suddenly have a huge line item on their financial statements: network access costs. For more popular services/content such as Google, eBay, Yahoo, AOL, etc., this fee could be enormous. Even for a service such as Boing Boing, which attracts millions of users, the cost could be prohibitive.”
Another large argument supporting Net Neutrality is the idea that a neutral internet brings with it the “revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.” This claim is in complete opposition to the anti-Net Neutrality argument. The argument is presented under the idea that the tier-pricing method, pricing varied by speed of connection, being pushed by internet providers will inspire innovation. However, Ray Cha of the website futureofthebook.org believes that tiered pricing “will not guarantee new and useful services for users, but it will guarantee short term financial gains for the providers. These companies did not invent the Internet nor did they invent the markets for these services. Innovative users (both customers and start-ups) discovered creative ways to use the network.”
The arguments against Net Neutrality are driven by the potential that the internet holds in regards to profitability. As I mentioned before, the end of Net Neutrality would come in the form of a tier-pricing system. The tier pricing system allows content providers to pay different prices that are relative to the speed of their page’s load time. The faster the page loads the higher the price for the content provider. Kevin Tracy, political blogger, thoroughly explains the reasoning behind the tier pricing. Kevin states that the thought process behind tier pricing is that prices should drop for lower levels of access; it would make internet usage more useful and would provide individuals and corporations specified tiers of service for their needs. With this system the content provider would only have to pay for the amount of access that they need as opposed to paying an equal amount as those who have more access and resources. This is so the average Joe doesn’t have to compete with companies like Google and Amazon while paying the same price to access the internet.
A sub-argument to support the tier payment system is a claim that we are currently in a two tier system. Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens is an advocate for the two tier system. Stevens made a public statement about his views against Net Neutrality.
Personally, I feel like the idea of the tier payment system is simply a bureaucratic scheme to make money off of the internet. It has been said that the internet is still too immature as a medium to make any real money. I believe that in the path to developing a working process that would allow significant money to be made from the internet there has to be legislation like the anti-Net Neutrality measures. I personally do not agree with the end of Net Neutrality because I feel that the internet is and should remain a medium that allows anyone and everyone an equal opportunity to express their creativity and knowledge. However, I will agree that there is a lot of trash on the internet and a tier payment system could possibly raise the bar on quality, which could either make the internet better or worse depending on the methods of gate keeping. In terms of Net Neutrality I like to equate the internet with early radio; this is because when radio first came out it was utterly chaotic since everyone was hacking the frequencies in the same way that anyone can grab a chunk of the internet.
I have not formed an absolute opinion about whether I support the tier system or not. I don’t think that the legislation to end Net Neutrality is the right way to go about taming the beast that is the internet, but I feel like it could give birth to an idea that will prove useful in the future.
You decide for yourself what you think. I've link to a few handy sources. Kevin Tracy's info page is really good if you haven't already checked it out.
As I promised last post I'll leave you with a video, but since it is a special day I'll give you two videos for the price of one.
P.S. Sorry Marie, I think I was a little left of your desired response but it is as you said, a blog should appeal to a broader scope of people. Personal blogs only apply to certain groups like friends and family.
