Com125, Net Neutrality

The whole idea about whether or not the net should be neutral is pretty interesting to consider. Should the net be neutral and let whatever happens happen, or should there be regulations by the government of materials, programs, etc. occurring on the internet?

According to one of our assignmed readings this week, titled Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious, "proponents of net neutrality argue that cable and telecommunications form a duopoly that threatens the current system. They say that, without some type of anti-discrimination law or standards, cable and telecommunications companies could control users' access by blocking content from competitors, favoring certain applications, charging higher rates to deliver information into people's homes and offices and failing to inform people of their capacity." This is a valid point because of the fact that so many people are connected to the internet.

On the other hand, "Internet service providers should be able to direct heavy traffic and screen out some material, like viruses and spam. They say some content, like medical information, is more important--and therefore should take priority over--other information" (Net Neutrality). Some individuals feel that should be some kind of filter, informaiton protection and control over Internet content.

I think the interests of all internet users are at stake. I think parents would love to have some net control over information that is made available to their children, but college students would like to be able to find out anything they need to on any given subject.

Both arguments are interesting and put me in a mostly neutral state. On one hand, I feel that information should be controlled to an extent--problem being, what is that extent? On the other hand, I think the Interned has evolved into something amazing because of everything it is made up of. So, I guess I stand neutral on the subject of [net] neutrality. As corny as it is, it's true.