Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the Internet should be treated equally. But with more people streaming data-rich video and playing online games, the Internet faces congestion concerns. Should carriers be able to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users? Should sites that generate massive traffic -- like Google and Yahoo! -- pay extra fees? The U.S. Government is examining Net Neutrality and its financial, legal and social implications. Do we need federal intervention to ensure fairness, or is this an issue for the market to work out?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Net neutrality is a stalking horse for government controlled internet
Beware of any Single Power, not just the Government
I think it's wise to consider the wisdom of getting the government involved in traditionally private business dealings. The end result usually is less free, less efficient, and -- as you said -- a real mess.
Freedom and efficiency are the results of good choices and a strong market. It's not government that makes something bad, it's the lack of consumer choice and consumer influence that occurs when government gets involved that makes it bad. All the power is held by that single entity.
The single entity can also be an insurance company used by your employer, a cartel of oil companies that behave as one, a cell phone company that locks you into a long contract -- these create the same limits on freedom and efficiency as government control can.
I support Network Neutrality on broadband because I see the competitive landscape continue to contract. AT&T just bought SBC, Comcast took over Insight and wants even more, both Telcos and CableCos go lawsuit-happy whenever a 3rd-party wants to intrude onto "their" territory, and they even fight each-other for trying to reach one-another's customers. About a fourth of us have only Cable as a provider choice, about a fourth of us has DSL or FIOS, about a fourth of us fortunately have both to choose between, and about a fourth of us has no provider at all.
Most of us are stuck with a single provider -- the single power.
Network Neutrality isn't a government take-over. It's a check-and-balance against abuse by a monopolistic power. The moment it threatens to grow to become a take-over, I'll be on your side of this argument.
Given the choice to leave the protection of our Internet freedoms in the hands of a single and powerful for-profit company -- or have it double-checked by a government by, for, and of the people -- I'm okay with some reasonable Network Neutrality.provisions.
- Robb Topolski
August 31, 2008 5:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.