Net neutrality is a very controversial issue that would affect everyone who uses the Internet- which these days is pretty much everyone. There are pros and cons to net neutraity and people have reasons to argue for both sides. The biggest pro of net neutrality is that there are that there are no restrictions or limitations that would make any sites slower or cost more money to use. This is fair and allows everyone to upload, download, search, and use any sites the same way. Another pro (in some ways) is that net neutrality allows for an even playing field to companies who advertise on the internet. If every company has the same chance of being visited and used it is fair and allows people to choose what sites and advertisements they want to see, rather than being forced to go to a certain one. A con of net neutrality is that once free sites may cost money, and sites that already cost money would have higher costs for certain websites, as well as internet providers. Also, making some sites faster/slower forces people to go to the site that the company wants them to go to, and this is an issue of censorship and reduces personal rights. As one would expect, people like us support net neutrality because it would not change the way we use the internet by making any sites slower or cost money. Clearly, large corporations and internet providers that get a lot of net traffic are not in favor of net neutrality.
Recently, Verizon sued the FCC for net neutrality rules and a Federal appeals court ruled that the FCC does not have the right to enforce net neutrality rules. Companies who provide internet service argue that since they are providing the service, they have the right to determine how they deliver it and what they charge.
The issue of net neutrality is tied to the issue of freedom of speech in many ways. The internet the way it is now is open an free for everyone to do and say whatever they please. However, if net neutrality is diminished, the big companies who can afford to pay to be visited by their users will be able to pick and choose who/ when/ how/ what, etc. people can view, post, download, etc. This does not allow for freedom of speech.
The recent news of net neutrality would affect everyone using the internet, but I think it would be really detrimental to students. For example, when doing research, it may be difficult to find information that isn't biased to the company providing it. If we are only seeing what the big corporations are wanting us to see we may not be getting the most accurate information. Also, if certain sites began to cost money a lot of people would simply go without. Youtube is a really helpful site with a lot of informational videos. What if it began to cost money to have videos load and play faster? It would cause a lot of problems for us.
As for my stance on net neutrality I am very much for it. I think it is only fair that everyone has the same opportunities to visit whatever site they please at the same speed and without cost. If net neutrality laws are taken away the internet will be a not so free place in more than one way. the ease of the internet will be taken away and the big corporations will have the monopoly. They will have the ability to charge more money for service and pick and choose who gets it, what they see, and how fast or slow it should be. It just seems really unfair to diminish these laws because they provide equality to the web and everyone who uses it.
These two sites provided valid information about what net neutrality means to us and I found them helpful to my blog post.
This is an opinion post I agree with about how net neutrality is directly related to freedom of speech.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/05/franken.net.neutrality/
And this link explains the implications of ending net neutrality for average internet users like us. It explains that this ruling could make internet a really expensive thing for its users, and make the providers even more money.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101
