In class this week, we briefly went over Net Neutrality and the issues we are facing with it. Net Neutrality is defined as “the principle that individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet Service Providers discriminating against specific online services or websites (Para 1).” What this means in simpler terms is the idea that the company who has connected you to the internet does not have the right to control what you are doing on the internet. If we do not have laws/rules set for Net Neutrality, internet users can become chaotic, as there is a chance in which they will not be able to get on to their favorite websites. For example, my internet provider is Verizon. If we didn’t have Net Neutrality laws, Verizon could prevent me getting onto Netflix and redirect me to a competing website, such as Hulu, which Verizon is gaining money from through every user they redirect to Hulu (Para 1).
Currently, there has been a lot of talk about Net Neutrality through the government. Starting in 2014, the FCC sued Verizon for violating their Net Neutrality rules. The result of the case favored with Verizon, which forced the FCC to become more specific with their Net Neutrality rules. In May 2014, the FCC released their new rules on Net Neutrality and got over 4 million comments on these rules. From the comments, they specified some of their laws, which lead to President Obama, in November 2014, endorsing their Title II and broadband protection, which passed through in February 2015 (Para 2). However, in 2017, Ajit Pai was appointed chairman of the FCC, and had plans to eliminate Net Neutrality. Chairman Pai proposed an appeal on the 2015 ruling, which was then passed in December 2017 (Para 3).
In present day there are:
- No rules preventing the blockage of websites, services, or content on the internet
- No rules preventing the slowing down of websites or services on the internet
- No rules preventing bribing, where internet providers are giving preferential treatment to certain websites and services compared to other options (Para 4)
What are your thoughts on Net Neutrality? Would you prefer to have Net Neutrality or to not have Net Neutrality? Is it an invasion of privacy?
I like the fact that you came up with the thought to question the net neutrality concept. My opinion on this is inclined towards having no net neutrality laws. One of the main reasons behind this is because of the fact that it is so hard to control such a wide network to information and to try to restrict the already established source of travel of information. This being said, the internet is now not under anyone’s control which makes it more difficult to establish laws regulating such net neutrality. Moreover, as mentioned in the Fortune website, even if such laws were made it would make the “small content creators, the worst losers” by this law. (https://fortune.com/2017/11/23/net-neutrality-explained-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters/) This means that every internet service provider will prioritize profit over information freedom. This goes against the favor of accessing free and varied information over trying to make money over the internet.
Sources used:
https://fortune.com/2017/11/23/net-neutrality-explained-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters/
https://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutralityfor-dummies-and-how-it-effects-you-2014-1
I believe that everyone has the right to access the internet on their terms, therefore there should be net neutrality, which will create an open internet. The elimination of net neutrality laws creates a capitalist nature of the internet, where companies can pay to prioritize their services or potentially pay to eliminate their competition. This is completely absurd, this removes the most vital part of the internet, freedom of information. This capitalist nature also will only create unneeded toxicity between companies on the web. I also believe, that there can be too many restrictions without net neutrality that end up limiting user’s transfer of information (ie not being able to reach the proper outlets to submit their own information to the internet). This can, in my opinion, infringe on freedom of speech because some people’s views may not be seen by others because of the outlet that they have posted to or the poster can’t post to the outlet that they want to post to. In the interest of the consumer capitalist endeavors by companies should be stopped and all information should be treated equally. My opinions stem from Dream Host’s view on the subject. Their statement can be found in the link below. (Dream Host is a popular website hoster)
https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/net-neutrality-guide/
I personally think that how things are right now are perfectly fine but there could be benefits for having it in place though. The main thing for me is that right now there are no rules for preventing companies from slowing down websites and services, specifically streaming sites such as Netflix or YouTube. I feel like having laws in place which could regulate either how much a company can throttle your connection, or just laws saying you can’t could be beneficial. I personally do not see it as an invasion of privacy but more as an invasion of free will if that makes sense. If companies gain the ability to block certain websites or content it wouldn’t allow for the internet to be as vast and free as it is right now.