Since yesterday’s Journalism 301 class, I have learned a lot about a little debate called Net Neutrality. In case you don’t already know, here are the basics:
Some internet service providers want to charge content providers more money so that their bits are faster than others. This in essence makes their webpages faster and better than a content provider who decides not to pay more for added speed. The fear is that the ISPs will begin dictating what they want to be faster and what should be slower, which would effectively allow ISPs to control content on the web.

Many people feel very strongly about this issue, and I have to say that I think there needs to be an even balance of both free internet and the option of having a tiered service. For example, if mytinywebsite.com doesn’t want to pay extra for faster internet speeds, it shouldn’t be penilized in any way; however, if Amazon.com is willing to pay more for their site to run smoother, than that’s their perogitive. The real issue at hand is whether or not the ISPs can be trusted to leave content alone and not degrade websites that refuse to pay for higher services. If that is the case, than tiered service should not be an option. I think this is where the government needs to step in and lay down some ground rules to help establish a fair set of rules for all internet content providers and ISPs.

I feel that eventually the two sides of the arguement will come to some sort of a compromise, but for now the outcome of the net neutrality debate is unclear. With new battles being fought every day, there is certainly no shortage of news on this raging debate. Change is a necessary part of life, but it remains to be seen if that change will prove to be better for the consumer as a whole.

Advertisements