You want to charge me for what?

When looking at the issue of net neutrality, I think it comes down to a simple struggle between the rich wanting to get richer and the poor not being able to afford what is better. In one of the assigned reading from the Wall Street Journal there is a quote from an executive who stated that we as consumers were crazy for wanting to use their services, which they made an investment in, for free. Thing is, as the number of users increases they make their investments back millions of times over.

The current debate is, whether or not these broadband internet companies should be able to provide “tiered” internet service where for more money your internet packets can be prioritized over another’s internet packets; regardless of if they sent their information first. Some special interest foundations have been wary of this proposal and have been fighting it because they believe that it would be very likely that their rights would be infringed upon.

Broadband companies would also be able to block content from their competitors and, block out any website they felt was necessary to continue their success. There was a case in the readings where a certain provider blocked the usage of Craigslist from their users, and they did so because of the lack of legislation.

The other set of interests that could be infringed upon besides there large special interest groups would be television station who stream shows online such as ABC.com, and lastly their customers would be served less fairly. Some people really can’t afford to pay for cable, but through the wonders of the internet they can watch their favorite shows. I don’t think some bigwig who could afford to buy a small island should be able to take away the small piece of happiness I get from watching Dexter on Showtime…online. With slower speeds I couldn’t do that.

I couldn’t really see these large companies being allowed to discriminate against customers in good conscience. The best part of the internet, especially an internet without bounds is the freedom it allows to us as consumers. What would happen if the net was no longer neutral and when you went to buy a car you found you were not able to access the Kelly blue book online? That could possibly happen if car dealers made a deal with these internet companies where they took away our right to be informed so it would be easier to sell us vehicles at a higher price.

I think the beauty of the internet is that we all get the same thing. I remember a lot of my friends had roadrunner before I did because dial up was much cheaper. It took a while for my parents to finally bite the bullet and pay for broadband, but when we did finally get it, it was worth the money. If the net became preferential towards its customers because of what tier of service they could afford I could see the digital divide affecting the U.S. because yes we may have internet access, but what could we access on the internet?

The execs from these companies said that tiered service would allow to them to increase profits and then in turn they could improve the service they provide us by improving infrastructure. However, in the readings it was said that in Japan and Korea, both countries are net neutral, but they are using networks that are infinitely faster that ours and they pay significantly less. I think that you can achieve anything on a budget, so I think that’s what these companies need to do instead of asking for more money. Maybe they should wait for some of the cables they use in Japan to go on sale, they we can all have more for less.