Is the idea of network neutrality sound and should it be adopted into law?

Topic:
Society Debates

18 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
67% of users

  • I believe network neutrality would be good for our nation because, otherwise, companies could have what amounts to a monopoly on the information that they provide to the public.

    I believe network neutrality would be a positive step ahead for our nation. Companies that control the source, type, amount, or speed at which a population can access information is tantamount to running a monopoly. Nations which have endured this type of control are the nations that become socialist, or even communist, societies.

    Yes SleepyPerry90

  • Access to the Internet should be competitive, and not be controlled by a few corporations.

    In the U.S., high-speed Internet is expensive and slower than other countries, like South Korea, because a few corporations control the Internet and want to bilk out as much as they can from consumers. With net neutrality, Internet becomes faster, cheaper, and corporations cannot block what you want to see online.

    Yes TickoNest

  • Network neutrality is akin to free speech and as such should be protected by law.

    When enabling service providers (telephone, cable, satellite) have the ABILITY to limit access to applications, websites, protocols or services they are able to drive Internet users to captive websites, applications, protocols and services, all that is missing is the financial INCENTIVE to do so. Competition for services is reduced, or more likely eliminated, based on the creation of artificial barriers intended to collect revenue from a captive customer pool.

    Yes ladiyuna

  • Yes, because network neutrality is required to keep the Internet true to its purpose.

    Without network neutrality, big companies can control information. The point of the Internet when it was developed was to share ideas and research, and it has now become so much more. The Internet has become the source of news for most of the world, with all of our portable electronic devices giving us access to everything we could inquire about on the fly. Without network neutrality, those searches will be throttled, prioritized and delegated by someone or something who decides what is more important, either my search, or someone trying to access their bank account information. The Internet should be first come, first serve, not predicated on who can make the most money off of packet priority.

    Yes MedicalDuane73

  • Network neutrality is key to the open and proper functioning of the Internet, and should be law.

    The strength of the Internet is that it allows arbitrary communications between any two arbitrary connected points. Network neutrality is the source of this key strength. Allowing companies to end network neutrality would severely damage the Internet. It would tend to become more like cable TV, where you can only access corporate channels, and only by buying costly packages. Free communication and innovation would be hindered. It would be as if the phone company was allowed to arbitrarily charge you 5 cents a minute to call Company A, but a dollar a minute to call Company B, even if they were the same distance away. It would be as if the post office could charge you 40 cents to mail an order to Company C, but 3 dollars to mail an order to Company D, and wouldn't send your letters to Company E at all.

    Yes tacomoon

  • The Internet is a tool for communication and information dissemination and should not be under the control of governments and corporations.

    The recent protests in the Arab world speak to the untenable nature of a government or corporation with too much control over access to and content on the Internet. Especially in America, where freedom and the right to education and information is part of our history, net neutrality is important and should be codified.

    Yes YugiWard

  • I think that network neutrality is needed in order to maintain a level playing field required for continued innovation.

    The best example that I can think of is AT&T. Back when they were a monopoly and could determine what devices could be attached to the network, they were able to extract crazy fees from would-be innovators. Once they were forced to allow the use of other devices we saw an explosion of new tech, like the fax machine. Although I support net neutrality I think a larger issue, at least for the US, is the monopoly of broadband providers, and I think that the two issues go hand in hand.

    Yes wahsfone

  • Network neutrality is a no-brainer to those who believe in the community, openness, and potential of the Internet.

    Network neutrality, in its strongest form, could be the most important advancement in legal precedent since early telecommunication laws opened Ma Bell's wires for competition. Net neutrality ensures that the Internet does not become similar to cable television: an a la carte fight for consolidation and price-tiering that hurts consumers and stifles producers. Network providers are the gatekeepers. But they are not the content generators, and they should not be permitted to regulate themselves. The functioning of the Internet is too important to be left to the "free-market". Just look at the telecommunication companies as proof of that.

    Yes WonderRic

  • I strongly agree the principal of of network neutrality, any censorship should be viewed as enemy of the free speech and constitution.

    First of all, telecom companies do not have the right to pose any restriction on internet access. If two user pay same amount of money, they should be able to get information as they ought to. Secondly, our constitution protect the basic yet fundamental right of freedom of speech. Any censorship or excuse used against network neutrality violate our creed. So I believe network neutrality is sound and should be adopted into law.

    Yes TinkerNikol

  • All the content on the internet should be available to everyone.

    The internet has become like a public library, with a huge amount of information available to everyone. Network neutrality is a policy that would keep it that way. Without network neutrality, some internet providers could charge higher rates for a higher degree of access, or block some of the content for their subscribers. The internet should remain the way it is, with everything available to everyone.

    Yes N Schroeder 60

  • Net Neutrality is very important because if it's not maintained, it allows one of the freest mediums to be limited depending on the whims of a corporation.

    Net Neutrality says that internet content cannot be limited and impeded by a corporation, so that Comcast cannot prioritize Microsoft's emails over mine when determining which one to send first. This is vitally important because it's a slippery slope. Once we allow prioritization, what's to prevent Comcast from saying my emails won't be sent until night time (where there's less load on the machines), unless I join the power users and pay $100 a month extra. Every other communication medium (mail, phone calls, etc.) is impartial to payment so the internet should be too.

    Yes P3rEver

  • I believe network neutrality is necessary because it supports free speech.

    You should be able to get what you pay for. Not allowing network neutrality amounts to censorship. It also limits collaboration among peers on the internet. Not only does it amount to censorship but it also limits the speed at which our society functions. I feel it would be wrong not to implement network neutrality.

    Yes Xhizors 58
Voice Your Opinion
No
33% of users

  • Public opinion and the free market keeps networks neutral.

    Networks are neutral because their customers want access to any and all content. They must be because the moment they begin to bias content, customers leave or seek work-arounds to access what they want. Piracy websites and private data encryption software are proof of this concept. Free and open access to information is essential to the democracy of ideas and an ethos of the Internet. When network neutrality is made law, those who make laws decide what is neutral. And far too often, those who make the laws either favor network providers who pay to play, or force network providers to filter content to meet political objectives in order to stay in business. Network neutrality by law, in either case, destroys true democracy online and subverts it in the real world.

    No Pir4And

  • Regulating how fast which websites go would ruin the free Internet as we know it.

    The Internet is the freest place in the world. You can do just about anything, whether it's positive or negative. Once a company or government regulates that, then the freedom doesn't exist. After all, you either have freedom or you don't. The U.S constitution guarantees network neutrality by the freedom of speech. Disallowing access to certain websites would inhibit this freedom of speech.

    No RayEar

  • Network Neutrality seeks to impose regulations on internet service providing companies, thereby limiting their scope and affecting their prices, which will be passed to the consumer.

    Regulation, especially when unnecessary, only creates greater bureaucratic control. We already have a greater increase in government regulation and control, including the Health Care Reform Act(HCRA), and a simultaneous increase in its cost. The CBO numbers for HCRA are already low in estimation. Network Neutrality legislation would do the same.

    No Asher Cummings

  • People have the choice to tune in or tune out based on their own beliefs.

    If a person feels like a network is leaning to far to one side or the other they should pick up their remote. There are so many choices on television and cable today, that you can almost certainly find one that is balanced enough for you. Seeing as how ninety percent of media outlets tend to lean towards the left, conservative thinkers will have a harder time finding one.

    No 5h035Bow

  • Net neutrality is not a sound idea and should not be adopted into law because it's just a money grab by ISPs.

    Net neutrality is not a sound idea and should not be adopted into law because it's just a money grab by ISPs. ISPs tried to use a word like "neutral" to make it seem more palatable, but it's just marketing. By causing more popular sites to pay them for service, ISPs will throttle the market. It would be a massive blow to the internet and set it back years.

    No H0bi3Invader

  • Network neutrality is a great-sounding concept that in fact allows more censorship into our lives.

    Who is supposed to judge about fairness? It is a very government-based, caste-based idea. A good place to start as far as why this is a problem rather than a help is Jeswald D. Salacuse and his books, especially on negotiating with government. It's not the same standard of conduct to deal with a government than it is with a free man, because instead of trying to have every side come out benefiting, the idea is to be fair to the people who did not win the contract, did not get their way. Why would we want to Bell Telephone the Internet?

    No groovybox
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Is the idea of network neutrality sound and should it be adopted into law?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource