In a summary of what net neutrality means, Mark Glaser sums up what each side's position is on the topic and why. In the article, he lists the major players on each side (some changes have occurred since this was written in 2008):"Net neutrality or network neutrality means that Internet service providers (ISPs) such as cable and telephone companies must treat all traffic equally that travels across their networks. That means that your broadband service provider couldn't block you from seeing a particular site or using a high-bandwidth service arbitrarily.While most Net users would want that freedom preserved, the ISPs believe that legislation or regulation would inhibit their ability to maintain speedy service for everyone and they have fought various bills before Congress that would enshrine Net neutrality. The ISPs point to a small percentage of bandwidth hogs who use file-sharing, video and gaming sites that slow down networks for everyone else." - Mark Glaser (http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/04/your-guide-to-net-neutrality107.html)
For: Groups like freepress.net, the ACLU, and companies like eBay and Craigslist
Against: Every major ISP, most Hollywood production studios
The advocacy groups fro net neutrality base their argument on the grounds of consumers' rights and the freedom of speech and press. If ISP's were allowed to filter the traffic on their networks, then they would be able to prevent access to whatever information that they chose. The companies that are for net neutrality take that side because they have a lot to lose business wise. For example, Comcast could decide that it wants to open its own version of eBay, and in order to make it profitable, they could prevent anyone on Comcast's network from accessing eBay.
The ISP's are against net neutrality for fairly simple reasons. If they were allowed to filter their traffic, they would be able to make far more money. They could charge more for access to the content that they filter out, and by placing a limit on a user's bandwidth, they can reduce the strain on their network, and not have to invest in expanding and improving it. The hollywood studios have similar goals. Without net neutrality, they could team up with an ISP of their choosing and then make all of their content exclusive to them, forcing consumers to pay more money to access it.
All information comes from pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/04/your-guide-to-net-neutrality107.html)
PBS is a non-profit public broadcasting service that is funded by viewer's donations as well as federal grants through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Information has some specifics incorrect as it was published in 2008, but it still provides an accurate overview of the issue.
I used Bing to find this.
2 comments:
Great research, you provide a lot of great information. I would imagine PBS would be in favor of net neutrality and therefore their information might be totally unbiased, but I am sure it is all very truthful because they are a trusted source. I find it interesting that the Hollywood production studios are against net neutrality. I have never heard this before and I am interested to know why that would be.
This information provides a great overview of how and why certain organizations are for or against net neutrality. It's pretty clear that the major issue here is economics.
Although I feel like capitalism is important, I'm not sure if ISPs should be able to regulate internet access given that I also feel that information should be as accessible as possible. In the long run, having the internet be as "free" as possible will provide more benefits to the human race as a whole.
Post a Comment