Assignment 12: Blocking the internet

Network neutrality is a current topic that has apparently sparked much debate in all levels of society. After reading the articles, I saw that this is a relevant topic, even though I had not given much thought to it previously. With the popularity and usage of the internet continuing to rise, this debate will continue to heat up and sooner or later a decision is going to have to be made in order for some stability to come about.

The topic of network neutrality seemed very confusing at first, and the use of a lot of technical words may increase that confusion. However, this article from Information Week cleared up some of the gray areas. Professor Timothy Wu coined the term and defines network neutrality as "information networks are often more valuable when they are less specialized - when they are a platform for multiple uses, present and future." My understanding of this is, it is better that as much information as possible can be accessed by a computer. If the information is chosen or specialized, the uses of a computer decrease greatly. It should serve society better to treat all internet traffic equally (neutral). How would it benefit someone to not be able to access certain information?

People who support network neutrality argue:

• Without neutrality legislation, cable and internet service providers (ISP's) could control a user's access, only allowing them to access certain information. This censors information from people, with the company deciding what gets seen and what doesn't. Also, certain applications and high rates can be selected.
• Online speech and democracy would be reduced. Would this affect Wikipedia?
  
• Customers paying higher rates, could be prioritized favorably with connectivity and content issues. Quality of service may be reduced for some users.
  

People who oppose network neutrality argue:

• ISP's should be able to block out harmful material such as viruses and spam.
• Some information is more important and should be prioritized/more accessible. Innovative material and medical information is cited in this category.
• With less information traveling across networks, bandwidth would increase, creating a faster internet
• Illegal file sharing could be monitored
  

Obviously there are people on both sides of this debate. Many things are at stake such as the democracy and free speech of the internet, which has increased recently. The relevance of online blogs has reached real life situations such as political races. Online games such as Second Life have real world ties as well. Censorship would become an issue. The internet is part of the mass media, and if this information is selective, internet companies may be telling people what they can or can't be exposed to, which may create legal issues. However, some people aren't getting the information they need, and if this can be given to them more effectively, it would increase the productivity of the internet. Connectivity issues and viruses are a problem, and also lessen the chance people can get the information they need.

Overall, I would support network neutrality and the fact that all internet traffic should be treated equally. People should have the right to access any information they want. Productivity of certain people's lives may decrease if the applications they use online are blocked. Mass media would change because the internet would not be able to provide all the information that should be transmitted to the public. The issue of censorship would only increase. In regards to the argument of connectivity or viruses, I would be in favor of working hard to develop new technologies to combat this, rather than try to block internet flow. There is probably much more information regarding this debate, but on the surface it seems the casual internet user would be in favor of network neutrality.