The Internet is the most important invention of our
day. This is nothing new, we already know that some of the biggest, most
successful companies are built off of the Internet and a vast majority of citizens
in developed countries connect to it and use it several times a day. The
ubiquitous nature of the Internet is due to a single decision made early on in
its development; the decision to keep it completely open for use by all. This means no single company could
commercialize it, and no single force control it. Not only has this decision
helped the Internet spread it has also helped and encouraged others to do the
same. From Google's data treasury, to Amazon's online retail empire, to
Kickstarter's non-profit funding powerhouse the Internet's “openness” has lead
to new levels of innovation, business, and open information. Despite the obvious benefits of this openness, many
have posited it is also a curse comparing the Internet to the “wild west” in
need of being tamed.
Many entities attempt this limiting in many forms and
for many reasons. The government has attempted Internet censorship for the
purpose of law enforcement namely reduction of online piracy. This has been
done through mass surveillance and physically shutting down servers and data
centers involved in illegal activities. Corporations, notably Internet Service
Providers (ISPs), also attempt to limit
the Internet. The motivation for doing this is, as will always be
the case, to make money. This is the purpose of corporations and will always
be. Unfortunately, it also means they will attempt nearly anything to make more
money. Corporations have done this firstly by limiting quantity of access and speed
of access; these have been called quality-of-service limits and are somewhat
necessary. They have also limited content to users. This tactic, however, was
illegal according to the FCC. Nevertheless ISPs have still attempted to limit access to content.
Incompetence on the part of FCC has recently lead
to rulings disbanding these rules virtually giving any corporation a free
ticket to limit users' access to certain websites or services . This destroys
the foundation on which the internet was built on and what made it the success
it is today. It will no longer be a place of exchange of information, media and
ideas; your access of it will be based on the decision of corporations in
pursuit of profit. Wal-mart doesn't want to match prices on Amazon? Simply pay
money to AT&T or Verizon to limit speeds or take away access completely to
Amazon. The government doesn't want certain ideas spread? Simply pay to have
those sites blocked (this wouldn't be called censorship of course). Political
candidates don't want scandal or opposing arguments spread? Simply pay to block
those sites.
Net Neutrality should be enforced to the furthest extent possible.
The Internet has contributed an inconceivable amount to humanity. Corporate or
government interference would only hinder its ability. True, money is lost by
online piracy and ISPs could make more money by enforcing restrictions. However,
compared to the financial contributions and the broader contributions that a
free Internet has made, this is a sacrifice I think is worthwhile. Perhaps
those "victims" should partake in the same spirit of innovation that
built the Internet we have today and find new ways to make money on the
Internet. They certainly wouldn't be the first to do so. In the mean time we
must boycott those companies that insist on destroying the internet. Most
companies support something we don't agree with but we can still get along and
buy their product. This is different because it effects us all and is in the
best interest of no one except stockholders. Hopefully, through the free market
we can show companies that we don't want that kind of internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment