Recently, the FCC chairman appointed by President Donald Trump, Ajit Pai, has spearheaded a movement to end net neutrality. This is not surprising if you’ve been following the government’s feelings towards net neutrality for years like I have, but most people would wonder why congressmen would be so against net neutrality. I’ll try to answer that question as best as I can, but as with all things, it’s next to impossible to know every single detail of the situation. If you’re ambivalent to the idea of net neutrality, why are you reading this? You’re using the internet to read this, so you’re obviously an internet user. As an internet user, you should be against this legislation.
Net neutrality basically ensures that an internet service provider, or ISP, cannot discriminate against certain websites by promoting other websites or blocking users from accessing said website. This is important because the internet is a digital marketplace where currency is exchanged, meaning it should have the same regulations placed upon it as trade in real life. Monopolies are a big danger in regular trade, as it means that the suppliers of goods or services can charge whatever price they want regardless of supply and demand. If Walmart is allowed to merge with another large grocery store or retailer as much as they want, they will eliminate any sort of competition for their goods, which means that they can control the prices for these goods. Competition is essential to fair trade, and our government is trying to end fair trade on the web.
Why would they do this? Republicans are big on free trade, they hate regulations, but in this case, regulation is necessary. They are almost never against free trade, but in this case, they are all for monopolies on the web, even though the used similar arguments against Obamacare, like how it would monopolize healthcare in the United States. Democrats should be all for net neutrality, as it means that tax revenue could be more diversified were taxes on internet purchases implemented and that it ensures free speech. The only reason these politicians are against net neutrality is because ISPs such as Verizon and AT&T spend lots of money on lobbyists to get in the ear of politicians and encourage them to end net neutrality. I have no doubt in my mind that Ajit Pai and anyone else who supports ending net neutrality sees only dollar signs, and they’re willing to sell the privacy and and freedom of choice of the internet-using American public to internet service providers.
The results of this would be catastrophic. ISPs could literally block the websites of any competitor, or block any websites they so choose, and promote whatever websites they want. If a company has a deal with Windows and not Google, they could totally block Google, Google Chrome, YouTube, and other Google sites in favor of Bing, Internet Explorer, and whatever video-sharing website(s) Windows owns. Also, ISPs will be able to charge whatever they want to view certain sites, meaning that the sites you enjoy visiting for free will probably only be able to be visited if you pay a premium fee to the ISP. Personally, I don’t wish to pay an extra $50 a month to be able to use the websites I like to use every day. I’m a college student, I can’t afford that kind of thing.
In closing, I’d like to encourage you to contact your congressional representatives and inform them that you’re a constituent who can’t support them if they vote to end net neutrality. I’ve contacted every congressional representative for my area, and it was a really quick process. It may not stop this from happening, but being passive about this definitely won’t do anything to stop this either. No matter what side of the political aisle you’re on, you should support net neutrality. Remember: we, the people, have the power in this country, and we can change everything with a vote. Don’t sell yourself short, you can help save net neutrality, and the internet as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment