Digital Watches
Smash Ace
Net Neutrality, an issue that's becoming more and more relevant as the internet's importance waxes, essentially prevents internet service providers from using their control of their internet service to favor one site, application, or service over another. For example, under policies that favor full net neutrality, an internet service provider cannot align itself with, one particular travel agency, ensuring that customers that use their internet service will be able to access that agency's site more quickly than its competitors, or even block the competitors' sites outright. This also applies to prioritizing applications, such as giving faster service to streaming video applications than to internet browsers, etc.
This sort of content prioritization is currently under heated debate in most of the world.
On the one hand, it is argued that many schemes could be adopted to offset costs with sale of surplus bandwidth, or by making financial arrangements with companies interested in having such a priority for their particular service. Some would argue that net neutrality is undue governmental interference in a private business. Some would even claim that their first amendment right allows them to hinder opinions with which they differ through use of non-neutral practices.
Of course, the economic benefit to the ISPs would also be a further advantage to already-wealthy companies, hindering the development of less well-funded internet entities as well as private developments. As the internet continues to further permeate modern lifestyles, the privatized nature of such a service may even be called into question in the near future, but even as it stands, this particular interference is necessary. Moreso than ever before, content is being created with unprecedented celerity by people who would be unable to do so by any other medium. Opposition of network neutrality is prevention of this new medium to grow and expand as it already has begun to, and the financial interests of such corporations as would abuse their power must take a backseat to the expansion of what is now the most powerful aspect of modern culture.
But that's merely my opinion. What do you think?
Is net neutrality necessary? Is it fair to the companies that could benefit from a lack of it? Should companies that provide access be able to regulate content?
This sort of content prioritization is currently under heated debate in most of the world.
On the one hand, it is argued that many schemes could be adopted to offset costs with sale of surplus bandwidth, or by making financial arrangements with companies interested in having such a priority for their particular service. Some would argue that net neutrality is undue governmental interference in a private business. Some would even claim that their first amendment right allows them to hinder opinions with which they differ through use of non-neutral practices.
Of course, the economic benefit to the ISPs would also be a further advantage to already-wealthy companies, hindering the development of less well-funded internet entities as well as private developments. As the internet continues to further permeate modern lifestyles, the privatized nature of such a service may even be called into question in the near future, but even as it stands, this particular interference is necessary. Moreso than ever before, content is being created with unprecedented celerity by people who would be unable to do so by any other medium. Opposition of network neutrality is prevention of this new medium to grow and expand as it already has begun to, and the financial interests of such corporations as would abuse their power must take a backseat to the expansion of what is now the most powerful aspect of modern culture.
But that's merely my opinion. What do you think?
Is net neutrality necessary? Is it fair to the companies that could benefit from a lack of it? Should companies that provide access be able to regulate content?
