The concept of an internet that one can only access through having some form of membership is frightening. Yes, we are already paying for our internet access. Much like everything in life there is a price to enjoy a privilege, however, the concept of an internet service provider deciding how much of the internet you are able to see and at what price is downright frightening.
The internet you view in a community in El Paso, Texas won't necessarily be the same internet you view in a community in San Francisco, California. The argument can be made that this is just like cable tv providers. Every provider offers different stations, and depending on what region you live in you only have one choice for your cable company (apart from satellite tv). The difference is that most people experience the internet through the World Wide Web (key word WORLD) in which they are able to read news, view pages, communicate, send email, or chat live with ANYONE, ANYWHERE that has internet access. The idea of the World Wide Web is that it is global, transcending physical borders and boundaries, along with ideologies, beliefs, morals, creeds, prejudices, etc. Net neutrality would prevent favoritism to be shown towards technologies. Data would be available at a first come first serve basis, for example someone with a dial-up modem wouldn't be disconnected from a download to make way for someone downloading with a cable modem. Without net neutrality, internet providers theoretically could control how up to date your hardware and or software is by allowing certain aspects to load and run faster based on your equipment. Only those who could afford the latest cutting edge technology would be getting the full internet experience.
When corporations are able to then decide for you what information is available to your community, this can have a huge impact on those living in the community and their perception of the world. In addition to the implications of what is moral and decent for the community, there is the unfair advantage the service provider can have by excluding advertisements and access to websites for competing providers or companies they do business with.
In the end the user is the main one who loses. When the user is experiencing a filtered version of the internet, especially if it is unbeknownst to him or her, that person no longer has access to all the information the internet has to offer that someone in another community may have access to. The person is basically being discriminated against because of their geographic location. The ability to choose what content you view is now done for you. In addtion, small business owners loose too. Those who are unable to basically pay internet service providers for more preferential treatment will be lost in the bottom of the pile.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment