Commercial internet — epic fail for Web equality

By Tania Cervantes
The Guardsman

Unlike print, television or radio, the Internet has remained quite open, giving small companies the opportunity to grow and allowing users to have full control over most Web site access. It is the media outlet that allows people to obtain information at any given time, and it makes them ultimate decision-makers.

Network neutrality is important for the preservation of an open and accessible Internet. It is the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. It means that no matter what the content, all Web sites will load at the subscribed rate.

According to the Internet Policy Statement by the Federal Communications Commission, in order to preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and access the lawful content of their choice. Consumers are also entitled to competition of network and content providers.

Companies like Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon, which provide internet services, are opponents of network neutrality. They explicitly oppose proposals to regulate the ability to speed up certain Web sites and slow down others.

Without network neutrality, Internet Service Providers could charge content providers for Internet channel usage. If a Web site like Google wanted to ensure that its content loaded at a high speed it would have to pay a fee.

This would mean that relatively new Web sites might find it challenging to compete with those already established, and such a practice would fail to meet the FCC Internet policy of entitled content competition.

Non-profit organizations may find it difficult to pay for bandwidth, as prospective donators might look elsewhere if they knew a portion of their money was being used to fund the download speed of the Web site.

Net neutrality has allowed the internet to become what it is today. For a monthly payment to an ISP, users get access to any Web site with the exception of those that require subscriptions, and all content loads at the same speed. Without network neutrality the internet may turn into something like cable television. ISPs could offer Web site packages, only allowing access to a list of pre-approved sites, while the other billions of Web sites are either included in special bundles for an extra fee or just ignored.

Students would be affected as their research and studying would be severely impacted if the internet were no longer easily accessible.

Overall, the educational value of the Internet would drop as educational Web sites may not have the funding to pay ISPs for larger bandwidth and many are not backed by big corporations. In turn, such Web sites may even charge subscription fees that students may not be able to afford thus restricting access from home and forcing them to study in libraries.

Opponents of network neutrality argue Web site discrimination will actually benefit the customer by providing higher quality content. In reality, Web sites given more bandwidth would not be chosen because of better content but rather because they paid more money. Net neutrality has been in place since the beginning of the Internet, and it is because of it that innovation has flourished and information is now widely spread and easily accessible.

The Internet is a primary source of information for people all around the world. For the internet to remain open and accessible, network neutrality must be defended.