Sign in or 
Location: The ITGS Wiki at BHS Discussion Forum
Discussion: Net Neutrality
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 8 posts
carms |
|
Skylar_010 |
1. RE: Net Neutrality
Sep 6 2009, 2:20 PM EDT
I am pro net neutrality. If the internet is market driven I do believe that the websites and information will become bias. I also think that it will be hard for small businesses that might start off as a web based business will not have the money to get their website on the better bandwidth. Therefore no one will be able to see or hear what they have to say. That is why I think that net neutrality is a good thing because it will help keep the internet non bias, or neutral.
Do you find this valuable?
|
psychoCHAN |
2. RE: Net Neutrality
Sep 7 2009, 7:03 PM EDT
I do agree that it is time for net neutrality to take action. I think "freedom of speech "is very dangerous to certain point of view. people use the term "The first amendent of privacy" to hide their identitis and speak non-ture, un-proof things to others(for example slandering) and if goverment does not restrict these users, soon the internet will putrefact and possible to put false mind to others. Also our technology can not handle the diffrent internetspeeds from many users, that creates a huge bug and make internet even slower. There for, I do have a pro opionion about the net neutrality.
Do you find this valuable?
|
Shortalmainway |
3. RE: Net Neutrality
Sep 7 2009, 10:02 PM EDT
I guess am in both sides, because its good for small business. However, if they want to start something should'nt they think of the money first. It's like if i wanted to open up a business, and I did'nt have money... At the same time were going to start paying for something we get mostly free. At the same time it's good for Net Neutrality to have some limits, because now adays the weirdest things happen through internet, so maybe paying will limit that.
Do you find this valuable?
|
lexi_=) |
4. RE: Net Neutrality
Sep 8 2009, 8:00 PM EDT
I am definitely pro net neutrality. I just really don't think its fair that smaller websites would have to pay this fee just so that they can have a decent amount of bandwidth on the internet to display their content. I mean if we let the market drive the internet then they internet will be up and down just like the economy and it will be unreliable. One day you go to your favorite news website and then the next day you go to log onto that site and a screen comes up saying that the website is no longer active or something like that. I think it would be just better to let the government regulate it the same way they regulate any other way to express certain views or values, but we don't need to make it something that is market driven doing that is kind of like waiting for a bad accident to happen.
Do you find this valuable?
|
chocolatereena |
5. RE: Net Neutrality
Sep 9 2009, 10:18 PM EDT
At the end of this discussion, and all the research, I would have to be against net neutrality. Economically, it's a big deal.Net neutrality allows the government to own regulation rights of companies, specifically what they can and cannot show. That can be incredibly dangerous, allowing the government the opportunity to screen concepts and media on the internet that is considered "against the government" or "objectionable" in the eyes of the American authorities. This also eliminates competition between service providers, which leads to America falling behind in Internet technology. Competition allows for the introduction for new technology. Without such competition, fiberoptics would have not been invented already, if ever. Also, competition keeps prices relatively low. Without competition, companies can raise prices, because there is nothing else to combat it. Now, some people may be afraid that without net neutrality, companies can screen their own websites. But come on now, realistically speaking, if it hasn't happened already under the same circumstances that would remain if Net Neutrality is passed in Congress, who's to say that it is going to all of a sudden appear? It just does not make sense. It is much easier to be more wary of the fact that such rights are being shifted to another authority, and to question those motives is understandable. But questioning motives of authorities who have had this power for a long time is like questioning a parent's motives for the greater good, when they have obviously done a great job in the past. Like Chan mentioned in the debate during class, why be so incredibly afraid of what isn't happening? Do you find this valuable? |
jennnny(: |
6. RE: Net Neutrality
Sep 10 2009, 2:59 AM EDT
Pro net neutrality, basically because we are saying we do not want Cable Companies or Phone Companies to control what we can or cannot see and how much the price is going to be. Without it will decrease our chances of using very helpful websites that may contain information that other sites don't have. Most sites are created by general people and with big companies in charge of the Internet will we still be able to create and post our ideas without having to ask permission to big corporations?
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Sydney_0911 |
7. RE: Net Neutrality
Sep 16 2009, 3:01 PM EDT
I am Pro Net Neutrality because if the internet is run by the market, then the small business would not have a fighting chance in our new technology based society, because they would not be financially stable enough to pay the so called "toll" to get adequate bandwidth for the people who are visiting their site, this means that when consumers come to visit their site they would be waiting for a fairly long time for it to load if it ever did at it. I feel that this is a new form of social darwinism because they are pretty much setting the small businesses up for failure while in turn making it easier for already thriving business to get even more publicity just because they have the financial aspect on their side.
Do you find this valuable?
|
