It would be great if the web was open and free. Unfortunately I have Charter for phone, cable, and internet. Which means that I pay about fifty dollars a month for internet service. Even though I pay for internet I am not guaranteed continuous service. The signal fades in and out and if there is a storm I might not get cable, internet, or phone service at all. Even iIf I do have an internet signal I am blocked access to some cites. It is not uncommon to come across a message telling me that I am not authorized to view this site.
I think that internet providers have a right to provide whatever kind of service they desire. I also believe that they should be required to disclose certain things. If they provide weaker signals or block access to certain sites, even though they shouldn't, it should be public knowledge. If an internet provider is not going to allow access to all sites equally they will probably lose many of their customers. If people are able to choose they will make an informed decision about which company they want to go with and they will select a carrier that provides equal service to all websites.
Most internet sites should be free to use. People should definitely not be charged for using websites like youtube that are made up of videos uploaded by the public. Sites like Ancestry.com charge people to view photos and documents that have been uploaded by users. I uploaded photos so that anyone that is related to me can view them. I am disappointed that people cannot see these pictures unless they pay a fee of around thirty dollars a month. However, if it is a website with content created by the owner then he should be allowed to charge whatever he wants for people to view his work. If the question is whether the internet provider should be able to charge extra to view certain websites then the answer is definitely NO! They earn enough money from the fees they charge to connect to the internet. I don't need to pay them any more than I do already.
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteIn my blog post, I took the same side you did. I believe that net neutrality is necessary for us as American citizens. I actually think that blocking certain websites could be considered unconstitutional against the First Amendment. I didn't include that in my post, but after reading your blog post I feel that it relates back to certain court cases that dealt with the First Amendment. The FCC has a lot of control to monitor what is being put on the internet. But do you think the FCC has the right to monitor ISPs? I think they do because it is their job to keep the internet free. I did like what you said about if a business decides to restrict certain websites then they will lose business. Do you think they should include this in their information before a person buys their provider? I think if they did, then it would scare off potential buyers and customers to their service.
Having worked in radio for 12 years I was never a fan of the FCC. I always felt they just got in the way of our FOS. In the case of net neutrality it seems they are moving in the right direction. It is our right to choose, so the ISP's should list their full information before a decision is made! Then the market can decide based on competition! The way it should be!
ReplyDelete