Monday, March 28, 2011

If you choke the internet, what color does it turn?

     I am a firm believer in freedom. Net neutrality protects that freedom. It allows me to open up my web browser, type in any URL and visit any website my heart desires. I'm not limited, and I'm not charged extra by my internet provider.
     I think it should always be that way. It is incredibly important for free speech that the internet remain open. If we can't access the sites we want with any service provider, then it isn't free, which violates the FREE in FREE SPEECH. If, for example, Comcast doesn't allow access to Google just because they have a contract with Yahoo, then we would have limited access to the materials that show up when searched. Yes, Yahoo does provide searches, but they won't bring up the same results as Google every time. Having those differences allows for a much more full and detailed search.

     “There is a reason that so many giant phone and cable companies are happy, and we are not. These rules are riddled with loopholes,” Andrew Jay Schwartzman, the policy director for the nonprofit Media Access Project, said in one representative statement. “They foreshadow years of uncertainty and regulatory confusion, which those carriers will use to their advantage.” from F.C.C. Approves Net Rules and Braces for Fight
     New rules have recently been put into place, protecting net neutrality. But the above quote tells us why those rules were so easily accepted by the major providers: loopholes. The rules are also weak when it comes to governing wireless providers, such as Skype, which can still block access to certain apps.
     Because of these loopholes, I've tried to come up with a way to justify a major internet provider wanting to choke the internet. I'm not a business major, but the only thing I can come up with is that providing internet is a business. You have to buy and sell goods/services, and the goal is to make the most money and have the most customers. It would make sense for the biggest ISP and search engine to team up, blocking out use of other search engines. For example, ATT teams up with Google, ATT blocks Yahoo and all other related search engines, which will frustrate the user because they are so slow, causing them to search out the fastest engine. While this argument doesn't bode well for the customers (higher prices and limited access is in our future), it does seem to make sense from a business standpoint, and that is the only way it makes sense to me. Otherwise, give me freedom!!!

1 comment:

  1. Normally when business deals go down like this consumers boycott. Refusal to use a product, etc. Because the Internet is such important part of the daily process from school, consumption, research, transfer of information, it would be hard to function if "we" said no form of technology. It would be impossible. Bottom line if net neutrality is eliminated we will still pay for the access. That is what everyone fails to see. We can bitch, moan, present arguments, but the end result will be us caving to Capitalism.