Net Neutrality: Fight It Before It Affects You

by kaylaleonard on December 3, 2017 - 9:59pm

How will the world function if bans and restrictions were put on the internet? This article by the New York Times highlights an issue that was brought to attention in 2015 under Obama's ruling, and the goal was to adopt regulations for high-speed internet. Major companies such as AT&T and Comcast believe that this will be worst service for everyone in the long run. The biggest concern that everyone has about this issue will that it will be a pay as you go type of access. It will also focus on two tiers, high-speed internet, and the opposite. The only people who will be able to access the high-speed tier would be the big internet and media companies and wealthy people. The others in low-income households won’t be able to afford the high-speed price. This issue won’t affect big companies such as Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon, but will affect the smaller companies because they won’t be able to afford to adapt to the rules and regulations set. This issue hasn’t been solved or put into action just yet, but the government is facing serious backlash. This issue could be implemented into a law soon, but people are fighting to have their freedom. Many don’t want internet blockage and restriction, but other’s favor it claiming it’s vital to healthy markets to be charging different prices for different products. This issue can be summed up by saying that people will end up paying a higher price for the same service they’re already receiving. I personally don’t agree with this issue and I favor net neutrality (which is basically keeping it the way it is instead of charging different aspects of the internet for different prices). I don’t believe people should pay extra just to use websites such as Facebook and Netflix on top of already paying their provider for basic usage. I believe this is just a scam for more money because essentially people will be paying extra just to be able to just what should be free, and what is free to use today. If companies such as Facebook want to charge a monthly fee for their customers, then that is their decision, but bundling all websites such as Mail, Netflix, Facebook, eBay and so much more together and making individuals pay for them is wrong. So many small companies and people will be losing their jobs due to this just because they can’t afford to pay providers a specific amount to allow them to stay in business and sell their product through the providers. I use Etsy a lot, it’s cheap and good quality, and I know this company is a small company. I don’t think this company will afford to stay in business, making products and also paying a provider to allow them to sell products. Etsy is just an example, so many small companies will be going out of business due to the issue. People generally pay between 40 and 100$ a month on the internet, which includes access to all websites. If the government goes through with putting restrictions on the internet then people would be paying 40-100$ as well as extra money for the websites they desire to use. This is ridiculous and I don’t agree with it at all and fully support Net Neutrality, which is not putting restrictions in place. Can you afford to pay extra for social media and other websites? Because I can’t.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-ques...

 

Comments

Marked for removal, duplicate.

If the FCC successfully stops net neutrality, it will only improve the already bad state of ISP's in the States. Internet Service Providers in the US right now already have monopoly of certain states, in some cases being the only ones and not having competition, which leads them to being able to do almost anything they want. Net neutrality is one of the things that was set under Obama to stop ISP's for charging people for "better" services which would cut the amount of money those sites people visit would have to improve their platform. Personally, I believe even those who do not live in the United States should protest against the FCC as they only want more money for themselves and do not have any other goal.

About the author