Net Neutrality in Turmoil The internet has become a big part of daily life for many. “As of 2014, the number of internet users worldwide was 2.92 billion, up from 2.71 billion in the previous year” (Number). The usage of the internet may continue to grow or it may dwindle due to the lack of stability. If net neutrality is destroyed, who would be willing to pay for a service that has been free since the beginning of its time? Net neutrality should be the status quo on internet usage to keep is loyal users.
Large corporations such as phone companies, cable providers and internet service providers (ISPs) are against net neutrality solely because of their interest in greater financial prosperity. These conglomerates that are against net neutrality …show more content…
“President Obama came out in strong support of net neutrality and advised the FCC to reclassify internet service as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act” (Newman). Republicans blasted Obama’s viewpoint on net neutrality. Republican Senator of Texas, Ted Cruz, even called net neutrality “Obama Care for the internet,” which is far off in comparison. A poll taken by the Internet Freedom Business Alliance discovered that about 83 percent of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” didn’t want internet service providers ISPs to have power over online content (Newman). Many believe that giving these types of companies control over the internet would be encouraging monopolistic behavior.
If complete control over the internet is handed over to ISPs innovation would be destroyed. Jobs that would traditionally be available would vanish because the ISPs would obliterate any entity that threatens them or stands in its way. Companies like Facebook and Google that have been insanely successful, are for net neutrality because they were born out of the innovation properties that net neutrality allowed. Without net neutrality Facebook, Google, Netflix and many other companies would have never come about. Net neutrality is needed in a society like ours today and wouldn’t function properly without …show more content…
“The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already been working on a new regulatory framework and is under no legal obligation to heed Obama 's call” (Liedtke). Although President Obama, stepped out in support of retaining net neutrality, the FCC will still most likely try and give both parties a little bit of what they want. The parties involved being conglomerates and consumers, as repeatedly in history, the agreement may not leave the public happy but these corporations wouldn’t be upset either.
“FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who is a former lobbyist for cable and cellular companies, defended the new position. Wheeler said companies would not be allowed to ‘act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity’” (Madrigal). FCC chairman is saying this but his actions in this matter say different because he’s trying to find a way to aid the actions that shouldn’t take place with the internet’s structure. This type of aid from higher officials is part of the reason that prices are so high, even outside the media
Large corporations such as phone companies, cable providers and internet service providers (ISPs) are against net neutrality solely because of their interest in greater financial prosperity. These conglomerates that are against net neutrality …show more content…
“President Obama came out in strong support of net neutrality and advised the FCC to reclassify internet service as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act” (Newman). Republicans blasted Obama’s viewpoint on net neutrality. Republican Senator of Texas, Ted Cruz, even called net neutrality “Obama Care for the internet,” which is far off in comparison. A poll taken by the Internet Freedom Business Alliance discovered that about 83 percent of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” didn’t want internet service providers ISPs to have power over online content (Newman). Many believe that giving these types of companies control over the internet would be encouraging monopolistic behavior.
If complete control over the internet is handed over to ISPs innovation would be destroyed. Jobs that would traditionally be available would vanish because the ISPs would obliterate any entity that threatens them or stands in its way. Companies like Facebook and Google that have been insanely successful, are for net neutrality because they were born out of the innovation properties that net neutrality allowed. Without net neutrality Facebook, Google, Netflix and many other companies would have never come about. Net neutrality is needed in a society like ours today and wouldn’t function properly without …show more content…
“The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already been working on a new regulatory framework and is under no legal obligation to heed Obama 's call” (Liedtke). Although President Obama, stepped out in support of retaining net neutrality, the FCC will still most likely try and give both parties a little bit of what they want. The parties involved being conglomerates and consumers, as repeatedly in history, the agreement may not leave the public happy but these corporations wouldn’t be upset either.
“FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who is a former lobbyist for cable and cellular companies, defended the new position. Wheeler said companies would not be allowed to ‘act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity’” (Madrigal). FCC chairman is saying this but his actions in this matter say different because he’s trying to find a way to aid the actions that shouldn’t take place with the internet’s structure. This type of aid from higher officials is part of the reason that prices are so high, even outside the media