![]() It’s not too late to make yourself heard, though. No one truly wants the government to regulate everything, but the alternative is dangerous. These companies serve the bottom dollar, not us. ![]() to act in the best interests of the consumers? How about AT&T? Or AOL? Innovation will suffer, they wail.ĭoes anyone expect Time Warner Cable Inc. Competition will force prices lower and give us more freedom, they argue. Why should the government regulate the internet? Let businesses work it out, they say. Preserving the free market is the rallying cry for many opposed to net neutrality. They can sell access to the internet, but they cannot limit access. This means that large companies have limited influence over the broadband market. The proposal is surely a coincidence.Ĭurrently, the internet is treated as public utility, not a luxury. They can’t even keep these companies from selling your personal information. ![]() In a recent decision by the Federal Appeals Court in California, the FTC has little to no control over broadband services. He has shown interest in moving jurisdiction of the internet from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Well, a second proposal by Pai might put that at risk, too. Surely there will be someone to protect us, right? News organizations would also be at risk of being censored as many ISPs are backed by those with political agendas. If a media company believes another entity is threatening its business (aka profits), they would likely be able to throttle speeds or block certain content from these entities. And there will be little to stop them from doing so if FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has his way.īut perhaps the most important tenet of the net neutrality principles is the preservation of an open and free internet.Ĭensorship and website blocking is common practice in several countries. have already shown interest in this practice. They would work much like cable packages: pay $25 a month for a certain number of channels, and to access others you have to upgrade. “Service tiers” is another term being thrown around. The ISP, in recent comments submitted to the commission concerning the repeal of the principles, confirmed that it is not against implementing the practice if it gives their company an edge over the competition. Those rallying for a repeal say this will never happen, but it already has.Ĭomcast was found to be throttling upload speeds for peer-to-peer services. Smaller businesses who cannot afford to do so may be at a disadvantage. You may have heard of internet “fast lanes,” a practice which grants quicker access to websites which fork over extra money. Companies found to be violating the tenets of net neutrality are fined heavily and reprimanded by the FCC.Īnd what happens if control of the internet is happily handed over to media empires? Since 2015, these principles have helped ensure that everyone has access to the entirety of the internet with no restrictions. Net neutrality encompasses a number of principles which were designed to keep internet service providers (ISPs) from throttling, blocking or filtering information or services. But the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is putting this – and much more – at risk of being eradicated in order to please large media companies. This is largely thanks to the implementation of net neutrality. Barring spotty Wi-Fi, this isn’t too much to ask. No buffering or delay, just entertainment the moment you need it. When you log on to YouTube or Instagram, one expects these apps to load instantly. The staff editorial is the majority opinion of The Murray State News Editorial Board.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |