I like to believe that we live in a world where everyone is aware of the ongoing debate concerning net neutrality. Bonus points to anyone who’s plugged in enough to have heard about it on Monday when the topic was brought up again via President Obama’s Twitter account, and then compared to Obamacare by Republican Senator Ted Cruz.
Now that we have this sort of simile going around, I think it’s time for a quick and easy recap on what net neutrality is, and how it actually works per Obama’s suggestion that Internet service providers be regulated as utilities.
Think of the Internet as a delivery service. When you click on something or start a download, you are ordering bits of information. That information comes in packages issued by the websites that manufacture them (Netflix, Hulu, etc.). But before getting to you, they go through a sorting facility that goes by the name of ISP, your Internet Service Provider (i.e. Verizon). The data packages are then given to the delivery kids who will bring them to your computer screen.
Basically, net neutrality means that all packages will be delivered at equal rates. Otherwise, each ISP would have free rein on how to organize their delivery system; in theory, a website would be able to pay for a priority delivery service.
Via: La Times
Now, Internet users are usually impatient and self-indulgent. Long waiting times would inevitably detract from the traffic of websites that won’t or can’t pay for that theoretical premium data delivery service. What happens to the ambitious, but not overwhelmingly rich, young entrepreneur running an Internet-based business? Well, he or she gets screwed.
What happens to big Internet-only movie services like Netflix? Well, they get screwed too, because not only does it use heinous amounts of data overall, it also competes with cable TV services offered by, say, Verizon itself.
You could even go as far as saying that no net neutrality could be an easy way for Internet providers to indirectly control the flow of its content. Not quite censorship, more like Internet bias.
The threat of this so-called Internet bias is, of course, one of the main arguments being used against net neutrality. If you have content flow regulated by the government rather than ISPs, you’re hypothetically a single step away from having content itself regulated by the government.
In addition, there is also the claim that service providers would lose interest in bettering the speed of their networks. We all know that competition is the quickest way to ensure that big companies will invest in strengthening the quality of their product, and that competition would be cut short in the online speed department, with the government as the traffic handler. Finally, there’s also the claim that it’s unfair for ISPs to cover the extra costs that come with data-hogs like Netflix.
There are arguments on both sides. Both sides rely prominently in worst case “what if” scenarios like, “Yeah, but what if ISPs end up turning content flow into an elitist system” versus “Yeah, but what if Obama is secretly plotting to turn us into China?”
Personally, I side with restoring net neutrality all the way, but here’s what hurts: How many people you know have actually extensively read about this topic? Let’s be real here. Few people actually crane their necks in order to see what’s happening beyond their computer screen. When the effects of the official decision starts affecting what is actually on that screen, that’s when the real questions start. By then then it will be too late.
Via: Bidnessetc
Bottom line is if you have access to Internet, then you should shape a real opinion on this debate, no matter which side you pick. This isn’t a choice that should be thrust upon ignorant people, regardless of what the final decision even is.
The Internet is like that prized, shiny Lamborghini we all dream of. And I don’t know about you, but if someone crashes that car because no one was paying attention, I’m going to lose it.
Featured photo courtesy of: VOA News
