In 2010, the Federal Communications Commissions introduced and eventually passed net neutrality protections that became the “first-ever rules to regulate internet access” in the United States (Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet). These protections put restrictions on internet service providers, so they would not be allowed to slow down or block internet services for customers. Citizens are overjoyed at the option of equal internet access for all, but this joy is short-lived because within a month the order was overturned due to a lawsuit filed by Verizon (Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet). This caused an uproar. There were immediately petitions and protests led by the people to express their anger. The White House continues to
…show more content…
Since they own the market, they dictate the costs, and that’s just how it goes. They know they are the only option, so they can take advantage of that by forcing steep charges that people can’t fight against. Those who can’t afford access to everything will be left out. “Consumers could… charge more depending on what a person wants access to” (Schallhorn). Figure 2 shows how ISP’s would like the internet to be, and without net neutrality that is actually how it is going to be. They will be able to separate things into individual costs that seem unreasonable and unfair. Not only can they dictate costs, but they can also dictate speeds too. By using the same cost system for access as they do speed, ISP’s can easily slow or speed up internet service, looking at Figure 1 you can see this. Today we all have the same type of service so our internet speeds are very similar if not identical, without net neutrality most of us will be put into a slower lane with more people while putting people who pay more for their service in separate more open lanes. But this can also be said for the small companies, “large companies can afford to pay for a special lane so that their traffic gets preferential treatment and small companies can’t” (Delia). It isn’t fair to play favoritism with large companies when ISP’s charge the same for companies when they know the smaller companies will not be able to afford the
Since they own the market, they dictate the costs, and that’s just how it goes. They know they are the only option, so they can take advantage of that by forcing steep charges that people can’t fight against. Those who can’t afford access to everything will be left out. “Consumers could… charge more depending on what a person wants access to” (Schallhorn). Figure 2 shows how ISP’s would like the internet to be, and without net neutrality that is actually how it is going to be. They will be able to separate things into individual costs that seem unreasonable and unfair. Not only can they dictate costs, but they can also dictate speeds too. By using the same cost system for access as they do speed, ISP’s can easily slow or speed up internet service, looking at Figure 1 you can see this. Today we all have the same type of service so our internet speeds are very similar if not identical, without net neutrality most of us will be put into a slower lane with more people while putting people who pay more for their service in separate more open lanes. But this can also be said for the small companies, “large companies can afford to pay for a special lane so that their traffic gets preferential treatment and small companies can’t” (Delia). It isn’t fair to play favoritism with large companies when ISP’s charge the same for companies when they know the smaller companies will not be able to afford the