Computers & Technology >
Internet Access & Providers
Get a Widget for this title
RSS Feed"Net neutrality" would act to reverse the longstanding increase in broadband access in America
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Disagree | 58% | 87 votes | Total: 151 votes | |
| Agree | 42% | 64 votes |
Disagree
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesNet neutrality and broadband access in America have nothing to do with one another. Net neutrality is a movement towards legislation that supports open access to internet content and information. Recent steps in blocking certain types of information exchange, such as peer to peer sharing networks by Comcast, have been under fire as being anti-net neutrality. Net neutrality is a movement against dictating "what" someone has access to.
Broadband access, on the other hand, is high speed internet access, sometimes wireless, and is limited in the United States by economic, equipment, and location constraints. This is one way to access the information that is protected under net neutrality. There are other options if broadband is not available DSL, cable, and dial-up to name a few. But should there be no net neutrality, the amount of information able to be accessed and shared will be limited and the argument about broadband becomes a moot point.
It seems that this question should be phrased differently. The question should be "Would a loss of net neutrality act to reverse the longstanding increase in information access in America?" The answer to that would be yes. Net neutrality protects legitimate information exchange though there are arguments about the dissemination of illegal content being prevented. To block the one for worry of the other is like imprisoning an innocent man in fear that he may have committed a crime for which there is no proof.
Net neutrality would maintain the increase in information available via the internet, thus maintaining the access to the information via broadband. But they really are indirectly related.
Learn more about this author, Alicia M Prater PhD.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Agree
The entire concept of Net Neutrality is a noble one, a vision of equal and fair access to all, but, like all government interference in free markets, it will inherently limit innovation in technology development.
We've seen the opposite issue recently when Comcast and a handful of other ISPs throttled back access to certain services when they felt their bandwidth was being overused. And Comcast was wrong to do so.
But, not for the reasons commonly presented by Net Neutrality advocates.
Their error, however, was not that they limited access but that they failed to do so openly and honestly. When ask what the guidelines and rules were for reduced access, Comcast refused to reveal the terms. Users were not informed when signing a contract that their access could be restricted and when they requested the criteria for reduced access the information was not given to them.
Innovation in technology comes from trial and error. Companies provide varying services to attempt to attract customers and revenue. While one company may offer complete and unrestricted access at a given price, another might offer limited access at a lower price. Some companies might give benefit to providers who pay a fee, and reduce costs to their subscribers by doing so, while others may refuse such bribes and give equal access to all, but at a higher price to their subscribers.
Some customers might wish to have fast access to news sites for a very low cost, perhaps even free if access fees can cover everything. Other customers may wish to have unlimited access to anything they desire and be willing to pay the price for such access.
This is how markets work to promote innovation. Choices are offered and customers select from a myriad of offerings.
The mistake made by Comcast, and a handful of others in today's market, is the failure to clearly disclose the terms they were offering. It wasn't a problem that they restricted access to some users on shared connections. It was a problem that the users they restricted weren't informed that they could be restricted. And those users had no way to determine means of avoiding such restrictions.
The most aggressive action appropriate for legislation by our government in the Internet market is a requirement for full disclosure and honesty in advertising. If a company suggests unlimited access in their advertising they should not be allowed to hide limits in the fine print of their contracts. If limits are in place, those limits should be fully and clearly disclosed.
Allowing networking companies the freedom to experiment with the products they provide, while requiring full disclosure of the terms in place, will allow for the greatest levels of innovation. What is needed in rapidly advancing technological markets is not greater restrictions but more freedom to allow creative ideas to be chosen.
Learn more about this author, Keith Hamburger.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
