I have changed my topic to Net Neutrality, because it makes a lot more sense, I know there are people who could argue against it, and this is a topic I know a lot about. I made my survey and asked questions about my new topic. It was based upon opinions, but got the feel of how much each person knew about the topic and we can see how that correlates with their responses. There were 60 people who took my survey. They go as follows: 60% of respondents agreed that internet search providers should enable access to all content regardless of source, and 6.7% stood by the opposite opinion; 50% believed it is not right to charge more or less with respect to user, content, website, platform, app, etc, while only 6.7% said it was absolutely okay; Only 18.3% of the people said they knew a lot about this topic while 6.7% clicked, “What is Net Neutrality?”; finally, 55% said they would be angry if internet service providers favor some content/apps over others while 3.3% said they would be happy. It is important to remind you that there were 5 options for each question. This survey helped me to gauge the opinion on this topic and see how many people may agree or disagree with my point of view.
Net neutrality is necessary to our world today, and it should be absolutely regulated by the government. The definition of Net Neutrality is the requirement for Internet service providers (ISPs) to give equal treatment to all Internet data regardless of user, source, or application, etc. Taking away net neutrality would mean that the internet is split into various lanes or packages, which would reflect inconsistent prices for the different websites and applications. Users would no longer be able to view any content free of charge, and would often be exposed to only the least expensive, the content chosen by the ISPs. The government has an obligation to give citizens our right, because as times are changing and the technology is playing an increasingly large role in our lives, basic defined rights need to be updated and carried out to modern times. The freedom to be able to absorb any kind of information desired on our internet would no longer be there, and the influx of different sources and sites would be changed completely without net neutrality. This is the place where each and every point of view and movement and small business startup may be expressed and it is crucial that equality is given to these organizations and new businesses. The price to pay for an absence of net neutrality far outweighs the benefits of not having it.
However, those who stand by the opposite opinion on this matter do make good points. It is understood why some may have this view. The believe that net neutrality gives the government too much control over the internet. This is a common fear among conservatives and libertarians who don’t want to see too much power in the hands of our federal government. And while those in power ought not have such extensive power, this is a matter they need to have control over. There are other things that should concern people with those specific beliefs, but net neutrality must not be one of them. This is a matter that needs to be regulated. Without fairness in this aspect of the lives of Americans, so many voices cannot be heard, because it may cost more to view their points or websites since ISPs don’t have preferences toward them. The second common reason behind the opposing view on net neutrality is that it messes up the potential economic growth and investment for this new sector. And while, yes, there is a whole new world to the economy on this technological basis, nothing can pay for this sort of violation of our freedom of speech and press. This may sound like an extreme claim, but favoring some content over that of others and letting viewers access articles published by some for a lower price than others gets in the way of freedom to express one’s opinion and speak their voice over the internet. Having another facet of our economy gives it more flexibility and room to grow, but the downside to this is more where the money is going and what it is paying for. There is an incentive for organizations and website owners and corporations to put their money in a certain place to get preferences by the ISPs and therefore publicity and viewer access to their content. This is wrong, and it only encourages corruption in the end. Finally, those holding the opposite belief are convinced that the effects of net neutrality are not what they were intended to be or will not be in the future. The intent, however, is to give equality over the internet. It is about letting the voices of the ‘little guy’ be heard. But without net neutrality, we cannot count on this place for all to be on an even playing field. There are not many occasions where this is the case, and the internet with net neutrality is a unique thing that gives this guarantee to all people regardless of source or destination or user. This is what it is supposed to be and this is what it has proven to be. And while the absence of net neutrality would be beneficial to the economy with respect to investments in the Internet Service Provider sector, the price to pay for this is much too large when weighed with the other consequences.Tags: #netneutrality