Jake Hughes
The Paw Print
After reading up on the issues of net neutrality, I felt a little overwhelmed with some of the ideas, technical terms, and proposals. I continued on to re-read the material hoping to spark up some ideas and thoughts of my own, and I realized, the Internet is a very fickle and complicated place to fully understand in terms of regulation. However, after reading the book “Media & Culture,” I would have to disagree that Google/Verizon proposal correctly and fairly governs net neutrality.
The book in particular supports my idea when it discusses the nonprofit coalition group “Savetheinternet.com” and the ideas they have. In addition, the article written by Cindy Cohn for the EFF supports my disagreement; yet, still expressing some gratitude for some of Google/Verizon’s ideas.
Although both CEOs announced they’re “interested in an open Internet,” the idea of net neutrality doesn’t support that. With strict regulations the bigger companies-with their big budges- intend to gain ruling power over the smaller and family run companies. The book says, “The little guy will be left in the slow lane with inferior internet service, unable to compete.” This illustrates and supports that the idea that bigger companies paying the bigger bucks would get better service which boosts their own profits and takes away from the lesser. Which I think is monopolistic of the bigger companies as they seek to overpower the market, which is also an issue.
In addition, the next in line and closely related to the smaller companies are the nonprofit companies like “savetheinternet.com.” They also are in danger if net neutrality is outlawed. Internet caters for many different people, groups, and companies, and the internet is a crucial part of nonprofit organizations. The book says, “A charity’s website could open at snail-like speeds, and online contributions could grind to a halt if nonprofits don’t pay internet providers for access to the fast lane.” Again, this reinforces the affect it can have on the smaller guy, and threatens to damage the work of important organizations.
One group of people, in particular, that I thought would suffer the most and the book supports are the innovators, entrepreneurs, and bloggers. All the regulations restrict, and network management would make it difficult for these whiz kids to make into the competitive and highly managed mainstream. The book says, “start-ups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay internet providers for the top spots on the web.” Again, just like the smaller, nonprofit organizations the bigger companies will outcompete and out spend the lesser.
One of the main goals of the proposal was “America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.” I believe that this statement is a little contradictory. The idea of net neutrality is to maintain an equal playing field, and by taking this away with their proposal of tighter regulation, it doesn’t allow innovation and competitiveness between organizations. I found that through all the technical mumbo jumbo a lot of Google/Verizon’s proposal was contradictory in my opinion.
In conclusion, I believe that net neutrality is a crucial part of the networking world. The internet should stay strong in its democratic stance and not fold under the pressure that these massive organizations are applying. Investigating this subject has been a real eye opener to the importance of the internet and how we strive to further our favored medium.
Works Cited
Campbell, Richard. Martin, Christopher R. Fabos, Bettina. Media & Culture 8th Edition An introduction to mass communication. Print
Davidson, Alan. Tauke, Tom. “A joint policy proposal for an open internet”. Web. 3April 2013
What’s Been Said…