When the Federal Communications Commission voted in support of net neutrality, Chairman Tom Wheeler was quoted as saying “The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field…The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules” (PBS). To ensure the free flow of information and fairness of the digital society, regulation is necessary, but meaningful regulation is integral. To uphold rights in the digital age, equality of access and maintain net neutrality are necessary though there are multiple avenues to consider in achieving this. Currently, Internet traffic is managed by service providers
…show more content…
For governments, a firm stance must be made, maintained, and upheld, with allowances for future developments. In the 2014 case Verizon v. FCC, the Open Internet Order was overturned due to legal classification standards that were not updated to accurately work in today’s digitally evolving society. Publicly seen as a failure by the FCC to protect the public’s right to open, unedited access, the decision led to the reclassification of broadband providers and gave the agency a strong foundation for enacting rules that prohibit discriminatory practices (Net Neutrality). Additionally, there is nothing more beneficial to government legislation than following the whims of the people. When faced with a ruling that was seen as such a blow to the net neutrality movement, the fight continued on largely in part to following the tide of public opinion—that the fight was still very much worth fighting. In order to protect the fairness of the internet, bans on blocking and throttling traffic and paid prioritization must be enacted and upheld with the full strength of the …show more content…
The internet without net equality becomes strikingly Orwellian, a sphere where cable companies can manipulate the landscape according to their political preferences, where the voices of the people are silenced if they are not in line with the corporate opinion, and where the “truth” is whatever the dollar dictates it to be. It is a new landscape where creators and consumers suffer, where no one wins except for big business. The internet shapes how information is distributed and consumed and the rigging of such an integral public source is a crime against the public and knowledge as a whole. Recently computer scientists at Microsoft found that “people will visit a website less often if it’s slower than a rival site by more than 250 milliseconds,” (Net Neutrality). If Internet service providers are able to block or prioritize certain content over others, decision making is no longer in the hands of the consumers. For example, if someone were to research the pros and cons of ‘net neutrality’ in a situation where it is not the default. All websites showing the benefits of a neutral, equal internet could be blocked, and only websites with positive opinions of internet fast lanes could be accessed; leading this person to come away without all the facts and information and, ultimately, a skewed
For governments, a firm stance must be made, maintained, and upheld, with allowances for future developments. In the 2014 case Verizon v. FCC, the Open Internet Order was overturned due to legal classification standards that were not updated to accurately work in today’s digitally evolving society. Publicly seen as a failure by the FCC to protect the public’s right to open, unedited access, the decision led to the reclassification of broadband providers and gave the agency a strong foundation for enacting rules that prohibit discriminatory practices (Net Neutrality). Additionally, there is nothing more beneficial to government legislation than following the whims of the people. When faced with a ruling that was seen as such a blow to the net neutrality movement, the fight continued on largely in part to following the tide of public opinion—that the fight was still very much worth fighting. In order to protect the fairness of the internet, bans on blocking and throttling traffic and paid prioritization must be enacted and upheld with the full strength of the …show more content…
The internet without net equality becomes strikingly Orwellian, a sphere where cable companies can manipulate the landscape according to their political preferences, where the voices of the people are silenced if they are not in line with the corporate opinion, and where the “truth” is whatever the dollar dictates it to be. It is a new landscape where creators and consumers suffer, where no one wins except for big business. The internet shapes how information is distributed and consumed and the rigging of such an integral public source is a crime against the public and knowledge as a whole. Recently computer scientists at Microsoft found that “people will visit a website less often if it’s slower than a rival site by more than 250 milliseconds,” (Net Neutrality). If Internet service providers are able to block or prioritize certain content over others, decision making is no longer in the hands of the consumers. For example, if someone were to research the pros and cons of ‘net neutrality’ in a situation where it is not the default. All websites showing the benefits of a neutral, equal internet could be blocked, and only websites with positive opinions of internet fast lanes could be accessed; leading this person to come away without all the facts and information and, ultimately, a skewed