The discussion of network neutrality was really interesting to me. What the basis of this controversy is that telecommunication companies like SBC are complaining that websites like google and skype are using their Internet to provide some type of service to customers. In order to prevent this, those companies would make customers take preferred pathway in order for them to view that site. As a result, the companies providing the services would have to pay additional money in order to have this specific pathway. In turn, the telecommunication companies would have all control over the Internet, which terminates all type of network neutrality.
While I understand that internet service is a business and some of these companies feel like they can make that extra dollar by doing this, I am against any type of violation against network neutrality. I believe that the Internet should be used how people want it to be used. I already pay enough to get these services from the ISP companies and I should have the right to view whatever website I want without being restricted from services like google just because the company feels like it. The only thing that should be restricted to people are things that are illegal or pose some type of harm to society.
If we give these telecommunication companies such as SBC total control over the World Wide Web, that would fall under the category of a monopoly. As has been shown many times throughout history, monopolies cause more harm then good. In the long run, most of the harm will just fall on the customer. The only thing I fear is that these telecommunication companies have developed a very strong relationship with the government. Our government is obviously very powerful and in turn can have a large say on whether this bill passes or not.
Erin Hogan | 01-Dec-06 at 3:31 pm | Permalink
I agree with your opinion that network neutrality should remain. I thought it was interesting though that you believe that the only things that should be restricted are things that harm society, or are illegal. This is a really interesting issue, because who would define what poses a threat to society? Often, it’s the government. The government, be it state or federal, makes up the laws and determines what is illegal. So they regulate the internet in that way already. As far as what poses a threat to society, that would change from person to person. You know? Are you talking about what threatens society in terms of physical destruction? Or what corrupts our minds? It is all very subjective.
Jessica Podeschi | 03-Dec-06 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
I also agree that the internet should remain neutral. It is so sad when things are created with one idea in mind and then they are used in another way that is negative. Fortunately, in response to your comment on these companies becoming monopolies, it is illegal in the U.S. However, it is quite possible that they pass a bill giving rights to a select few groups that way it isn’t a monopoly but they can still overprice and make a profit.
However I agree with Erin on the concept of what is a threat. You can’t pick and choose neutrality. It is an all or nothing thing which we either can limit or go 100% neutral on.
Patrick Morrissey | 04-Dec-06 at 4:54 pm | Permalink
It is important to maintain access to the internet. In lecture Dan made me realize that the future of the internet remains undecided. I think that the best way to ensure that the internet is accessible for all is to advocate for free citywide access. I understand that it is in its early stages and many IP providers fear the loss of business, but I feel that it is the only way to provide the internet to the people. The worse alternative would be stuck with limited access and a high connection fee to surf the net.
Adam Warren | 04-Dec-06 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
I’ll start by saying that I’m also for network neutrality. How could we, such benefactors of this beautiful thing that we have made condone the corruption of it? Thinking of an internet service so similar to a television service, where you must order certain sites or “channels” is just depressing. The problem we face here is the ever-present ineptitude of our government, which is always even more painfully apparent when on subjects of technology. What sort of fix is there for this then? Congress, ever-swayed by lobbyists, surely seems the wrong group of people to decide on these objects of so much importance. Should there then be a powerful and separate group of experts on technology making these decisions? It is a tough situation, and the outlook is grim if the people we see in power today are the people making these decisions.
Danielle Bracken | 05-Dec-06 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
I also believe that it is important to maintain network neutrality. I think that by companies having more control, they will either keep restricting our freedoms or more companies will join in trying to take part of the control. I think this will only lead to more harm with people fighting over control and the people being controlled trying to find ways around what’s going on, which could potentially lead to more harmful or dangerous behaviors on both parts.
Kyle Padera | 06-Dec-06 at 10:53 pm | Permalink
When we lose network neutrality, it is just a statement towards our government truly being in close connections with big business. IE Facism. If big brother is staring down my neck and telling me what I can do or cannot do on the internet I think that violates my unalienable rights (the first, second, and third). These people kill me, I think they either forgot about the bill of rights or never heard of free will, or they just think they are God. Sure I understand the economic modalities of the situation, but are our rights so easily payed off? I don’t think so. And furthermore, how would they like if if we made them pay us in order to pick out clothes, or choose a street to take to work. They are trying to take our choice away, are these guys serious? just go to www.amnesty.org because they obviously have never been there…
William Lee | 07-Dec-06 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
Network neutrality is key and I feel not only benefits us, but also the economy. These sites like Google and the such generate a lot of ad revenue and those ads also help the companies like Amazon and eBay that advertise on Google and Youtube. So sure it might be robbing the telecommunication a few bucks that they feel they deserve, but by maintaining network neutrality, the entire economy is helped by the success of these businesses. The idea of controlling the web by the telecommunications companies is purely and simply a greedy and selfish idea. No justification at all really.
Rickin Shah | 07-Dec-06 at 7:57 pm | Permalink
I like most people in class also feel the network neutrality is a standard that should be upheld. I understand the point the internet providers make but like Ken said, we pay enough money for the services we get. Being able to view whatever sites i want to on a network with information from people all over the world is entirely my right. Ken was right in having concerns about monopolies. The end result will only hurt consumers. Government is powerful and to have them back an idea like this by passing a bill really wouldn’t show good judgement in the interest of their citizens. I guess its a toss up and we’ll just have to wait for a final verdict.
Kenneth Sullivan | 07-Dec-06 at 11:54 pm | Permalink
Although I agree with you Rickin (since you agreed with me), the government could have economical issues in mind when debating over this bill. Enacting this bill would take more money from the consumers and put it into the market, which could in the long run help the economy. So while I really do not want to see it happen, and it certainly would not be in my best interest at this point for the bill to pass, there could be other factors determining the outcome of said bill.