Network Neutality

In the current debate of network neutrality many Internet Service Providers feel the need to charge sites of high traffic extra money for usage of their lines. Due to the fact that these high traffic sites typically slow down the efficiency of their service. However others argue that by if a system like this is implemented it would regulate and possibly block some users from having access some sites. As a law professor from Columbia University states, "information
Networks are often more valuable when they are less specialized -- when they are a platform for multiple uses, present and future" (Wu, p.1, Net Neutrality Rate Remains Contentious). If Broadband and DSL companies were to have their way they would be specializing the internet, and therefore taking away certain information from the public who has the right to access it. They speak how people who use Google or those who download large files as causing traffic and slowing down the speed of their service. The Broadband and DSL companies feel that by not regulating this they are not holding their promise to the customer of high-speed online access. I feel that this is just something people have to deal with, much like the traffic you may encounter on your way to work. Just because the sign on the side of the highway says that the speed limit is 55 MPH does not mean that you will be able to do 55 MPH. Even a better example would be to think of the Timetable for the New York City Subway System as a network. Sometimes the train arrive late sometimes they arrive early. A customer does not get charged extra if for some reason their train takes longer to get them to where they are supposed to be then it said on the schedule so why should a company like Google be charged extra because of the high volume of traffic that their network encounters. “The Internet has succeeded in attracting users and applications because it has been an oasis of deregulation in the midst of a highly regulated telecom market” (Wikipedia, p.8). This means that most people are more concerned with the fact that they have access to whatever information they may need. Yes, a faster connection is always a plus however in the grand scheme of things it seems as if it is better to have access at a slower rate then not at all. Also by regulating the Internet smaller ISP that cover the areas that the major ISP Companies do not would probably find themselves at a loss for access to certain site. It is said that in some areas of Iowa is cost as much as $170 for DSL (Turner). If you ask me that is a little pricey for DSL or any Internet service. Ultimately if net neutrality is not enforced I feel that we may see a monopoly generated from this. The larger companies would have the power to limit access of certain sites to those that pay the highest price. Thus taking away from the information that those at lower Internet speeds have access to now.


Citations:

"Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious." Information Week. 13 Apr. 2007 .

"Network Neutrality." Wikipedia. www.wikipedia.com. 13 Apr. 2007.

Turner, Derek. "Free American Broadband!" Salon.com. 13 Apr. 2007 .