This article provided an introduction to net neutrality (regulating the internet). The net neutrality debate is often famed as having just two sides. On one side are the operators, for example, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, who argue that those who make high use of and profit from the Internet should pay for that use. The other side is more complex and consists of service providers, for example, Google, Intel, and Amazon (to name a few), who state that access tiering threatens the core values and social usefulness of the Internet and that governments must get involved to prevent access tiering from occurring. The authors show that net neutrality is not simple but is a complex issue that must link the public interest with legal, practical and commercial considerations. And, when all is said and done, there is no “correct” position.
The access tiering model, which is the subject of the net neutrality debate, is an attempt to adjust the Internet’s default settings by placing control of the network in operators’ hands and allowing them to set the price for access. Competitors fear being unable to compete. Non-commercial entities fear being unable to pay. With control of the Internet comes power; access tiering is potentially a very powerful form of control. At the writing of this article (2006) there had been few examples of operators actually engaging in access tiering to date.
There is no incentive for operators to access tier, as their consumers want access to the entire Internet. If access tiering is allowed “youTube.com” may no longer be accessible. Net neutrality requirements do not appear practical or desirable. The question that can be asked is, should the Internet be regulated, and if so, how?
Regulating the Internet
How to get to this article?
Step 1: Go to UWO homepage.
Step 2: Under Titan Services on the right hand side scroll down to Polk Library.
Step 3: In the List of Library Search Tools scroll to ScienceDirect
Step 4: In the “All fields” box type in Net neutrality: A user’s guide.
Step 5: Click on the article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that it should be monitored and regulated and any activity that is illegal should be removed. Especially with the rise of young children accessing the internet without parental supervision.
ReplyDeleteRachel
No, the internet should not be regulated. We don't need anything else to cost more than it already does. There is nothing wrong with the freedom everyone has on the internet wrong. Why fix a thing that isn't broken.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that internet should be regulated. It already costs enough each month, we don't need to be paying for logging on each time.
ReplyDeleteI think that the only means of regulation that the internet has is for illegal activity. If something is illegal, it should not be allowed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think that the internet should remain unregulated. Regulation is a slippery slope. Even if only illegal activity were to be regulated, who is to say how far that would go? If someone uses a website about historical weaponry to create a weapon and use it, is that considered illegal because it resulted in an illegal action? I think that people who use the internet to engage in illegal activity or to gain information for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity should definitely be punished. I believe that the focus needs to be on people themselves, not necessarily the internet.
ReplyDeleteHeck no the internet should not be regulated. Goodness people should have their freedom. If someone is being hurt and not just offended by something that is a different story but as for illegality...that's crap-people need to look at individual issues and regulate only out of protection from real danger.
ReplyDeleteMonitoring the internet may be a good idea but actually forcing us to pay for certain areas would be detrimental. Once again the big businesses are taking out the small ones.
ReplyDeleteI think if a site wishes to be monitored than it is up to the sites owner to regulate/monitor it-but not at our expense.
ReplyDeleteI think sites like You-tube are already monitored at least from an audio/music stance and honestly it irritates me. I make videos and credit the musicians music and the scenes I take from movie clips and still they tell me that the audio has been disabled!
So I just go to other sites that allow me to still use whatever music to my videos-which is going to keep happening-unfortunately (or fortunately)
The only way id be pro regulation is if the government was regulating the internet for something useful...health care, armed forces, etc. However it scares me that there would be a glass ceiling in the cost of the internet. The major corporations do not deserve nor need another way to make money and increase CEO's salaries.
ReplyDeleteNet neutrality means regulating big companies that own the infrastructure to make sure every site has equal access. I like having access to all sites, so this seems good.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, regulating content would be detrimental to free speech and that is bad.
I think that the Internet does need some regulations, but not many. Obviously if there is something illegal being done, etc. it should be taken off and banned. However, the Internet is so popular because it has such a large variety of material and opinions from people all over the world. By placing tons of rules and regulations on the Internet, it compromises the integrity and purpose of it.
ReplyDeleteDo not regulate. Keep youtube. Why do they always want to change a good thing? -- It is always about the money, pure greed. That is what ruins a wonderful, creative, and democratic invention like the internet; money.
ReplyDelete