It will first be important to note that three major websites are pushing for net neutrality. Those are MSN, eBay and Google. Now with that I will talk about the article. The article in general discusses the issue of net neutrality in terms of it being a federal issue, with the presidential candidates all having some sort of view on it. The article itself seems to lean toward net neutrality. The article discusses a website called “SavetheInternet,” which is a website geared towards net neutrality and its importance. Net neutrality according to this article is that it is equal time given to all facets of the internet, without discriminating, or showing partiality to any one website, etc. This also has to do with the idea of interfering within the scope of the network, deciding who can connect and who cannot. Those advocating want to see legislation that would forbid any interference.
In the article there is a debate. One is in favor of net neutrality (Tim Berners-Lee), and the other is against it (John Chambers). Tim Berners-Lee believes that because we pay for the internet, there should not be any discrimination over who can connect to the web and who cannot.
The price tag should be attached to the web, not to us. (Perhaps cite quote in blog?). He believes that a neutral web is important to our society today (Paraphrase). The other view by John Chambers suggests that with the continual advancement and growth of the internet, it is important to give quality services to people over the www. There needs to be regulation, especially when problems occur. He believes that net neutrality would only compound the problem.
Would you be for or against legislation that would place a net neutrality system over the www?
Go to UW Oshkosh home,
Click on Polk Library
Click on Academic Search Elite
Type in Internet Neutrality
I am not sure, I need more information to make an informed decision. Sorry
ReplyDeleteRachel
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tim Berners-Lee, the price should be tagged to the internet, not to us.
ReplyDeleteI think that we pay enough money already to use the internet, why should we pay more to get the same thing we are getting now? I agree with Tim Berners-Lee in that the price should be tagged to the internet, not to the users.
ReplyDeleteFor! Net neutrality wouldn't lead to new, higher charges to use the internet, nor would it lead to restrictions by the phone/internet providers.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with the system now? Consumers pay a high enough price already for cable and internet. I have already fought with Time Warner Cable numerous times about their high prices. It would only make things more expensive and less accessible.
ReplyDeleteMy cable and internet bill is 90 bucks a month now. I don't think I should have to pay anything more to the using of the internet and if I did-then I think a lot of people would find ways to cut back on their bills somewhere. And I would be one of those people.
ReplyDeleteThings should stay as they are! Why mess with what works? We should keep paying our once a month internet price and then be done with it. I'm a poor college kid, stop bleeding us dry with new fees!
ReplyDeleteThings should stay the way they are! Why mess with what already works? I think we should only have to pay our monthly internet rates and be done with it. It think they need to stop trying to find ways to put new costly fees on everything!
ReplyDelete