By Ruby Patel
In any business, the ultimate goal is revenue. In some instances (such as with Exxon Mobile), morals and validity are overridden by the desire for money. And it is clear that ultimately the internet is one large business. ISP’s exist to allow subscribers to enter the internet. Many websites on the internet exist because of profits brought in through users and advertisements.
In the near future this capitalistic drive which the internet is based around may result in changes that will end our Internet. Today it is common practice for a user to login to the internet using a specific browser from AOL to Power Net Global and then surf the internet and access their website of choice. This is the freedom that we have comfortably associated with the internet, but this process could easily change. Very soon this “Net Neutrality” will be overturned by the desire for ISP’s to make profit. As of this very moment in time, many companies have made agreements to exclusively allow users to visit websites with which the companies have contracts. Although these agreements have not been put into action, some changes will be made as early as 2012.
A metaphor of what the internet can become is television. We subscribe to some type of television connection and then are allowed to watch certain channels approved through the company we subscribe. If we want to watch more channels then we pay more and thus the company makes a steady profit. The very real problem is that the internet will no longer be free and we the user will be constricted to certain websites simple because our subscriber has a contract to make money by our exclusively visiting these sites. It is very likely that websites that do not make contracts with ISP’s such as Google or smaller private websites will face a huge loss in the number of users the have and eventually may cease to exist.
The change is already happening: for example Comcast has already controlled broadband to prevent the use of certain applications. Some speculate that the entire internet will be reformatted to follow this format within four years.
It is my opinion that this is a very real threat that could change not only the idea of Net Neutrality but our entire lives. We must stop this capitalistic reconstruction of our internet! Imagine a world I which we are controlled and forced to use only certain websites, imagine a world where we have no choice or freedom, and imagine a world without Net Neutrality.
The only was to prevent the end of the internet is to make such agreements between ISP’s and websites illegal. To do so we must turn to our legislative branch and in particular the Senate. At this moment in time there are petitions to protect Net Neutrality and the support of users such as ourselves can make a difference. We can get involved in the fight against the end of our internet through several activist groups one being Save the Internet.
Please add your opinions about Net Neutrality and visit the links or add your own links in order to gain an understanding of the very prevalent threat of the end of the Internet.
7 Comments
September 16, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The concept of signing in to use certain websites, or creating an account for certain pages has already started. Did we really believe that we wouldn’t eventually end up paying for our internet? Of course cooperations watch what society prefers, and they make leaps at it–when the television became a daily access in the majority of homes across America, the companies came to make us pay for certain channels, such as for movies or for the expensive cost of satellite. Now that our news and television shows are rapidly moving to the internet, the business will thrive from profits from the new technological source we use daily. As stated above, “capitalistic drives” are what runs our nation. In our own ways, we’ve been spoiled by the freedoms of the internet; we can download illegally, never having to pay for a cd again. We search the content of books and radios without having to buy them. We are used to the world opening up before us with just the click of a mouse, and now that that freedom is threatened, we will feel threatened. I feel that this is an inevitable concept, and despite attempts to keep this freedom ours, it will be overtaken by the cooperations and our wallets.
September 16, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Hannah makes a really interesting historical analogy to pay-cable TV, which became an expectation only in the very late 1980s, after decades of free TV. Similar trends exist in phone service (the shift from one phone plan per household to one per person), radio (now in satellite if you want decent programming), and even public libraries to the extent that some of their role has been offloaded to coffee shops and the big chain bookstores.
But we could also point to things that we used to expect to pay for and now we expect to get for free: mostly notably newspapers — and their archives — if we’re willing to read them online. Early efforts to monetize the news online largely failed – people didn’t want to pay for a subscription, and most of the time people were even irked if they had to sign in and went elsewhere.
September 18, 2008 at 11:46 am
Hannah is right to point out the trend of pay as you go services for the internet. The idea is not new; however, there is still another threat that looms. More and more people are logging onto the web and obtaining video files, music files, and word files at a faster and larger rate. This is drawing us into a new and strange direction. More and more service providers are considering, and or running small time experimental service contracts with bandwidth limit. So while we may be worrying about how much it will cost to see visit some sites, we now have to worry about being able to visit the sites at all. With the new bandwidth dilemma, people will start to prioritize their “internet agenda”. This will cause the fringe sites or groups that exist only in surplus to disappear. Too few of time will be spent on obscure sites as consumers try to cram in all their bandwidth to watch 5 You tube videos and write some emails. The cost of internet is constantly evolving, and this is just another control that is put on both the consumer and the producer at the expense of overall intellectual and societal advancement.
( Please note that while the bandwidth limits currently being imposed will not affect 95% of us, the more videos uploaded and created will start to affect users more in the future)
September 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The freedom to browse the internet for our own purposes is one of the most appealing aspects of online surfing. As citizens of a world where choices are limitless, we thrive on the ability of companies to provide us with multiple services and outlets. I believe that putting limitations on what sites people are allowed to view will also lead to certain types of criminal activities that can be found in other limited services. For instance, people who do not want to buy $10 tickets to go see a movie in theatres will go out on the streets and find bootlegged versions of the movie for a cheaper price. Those that don’t want to pay for their cable service use certain devices for “stealing” cable. When these types of limitations such as monetary issues move into the internet, there will undoubtedly be many more hackers who will try to cheat this new system. Despite the fact that companies will make some profit, they must ask themselves is that enough reason to alienate the thousands or millions of other users that just want to be able to choose.
September 22, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I agree with Charles. The most enjoyable thing about the internet, and the reason it is so extensively used is because of its simplicity and range of access to countless sites on countless topics. If the American society was to be stripped of its expected right to log into the internet and receive information, we would be receding instead of proceeding in the ability to easily transfer and receive information worldwide. Furthermore, if asked to pay additional money for internet usage, especially on certain sites, internet companies will ultimately be losing a major population of Americans whom cannot afford to pay additional fees for the internet. Like cable, it will no longer be rare for a household to lack internet service. This limits our ability as citizens to access current events, email and information which the internet now readily and cheaply provides. Will raising the price of internet usage truly be profitable? With fewer users and less time spent on the web, how much information and at what rate will this information be spread? Is this truly helpful or hurtful to the American public and other nations around the world – most of which use the internet to interact with the American people-?
September 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm
To answer Chidera’s questions, I believe that making American’s pay extra for internet usage will ultimately cause major corporations to lose money, instead of turn a profit. I feel that if our rights to view what we please and log into our websites or choice are compromised, many will not bother to use the internet at all. Others will probably use the internet and the websites forced upon us as little as possible. However, if the internet does grow into another media, much like television, then I don’t see much of a problem. If people can afford to purchase computers, they are likely to pay, a hopefully reasonable, fee to be granted access to specific sites. An ongoing controversy looming over the internet has been concerned with its regulation. Like on TV, major corporations have the ability to regulate the content of shows. If this same principle was applied to the internet, perhaps this new internet would be the answer to many of our problems. Maybe major corporations could help us solve issues of governance, identity, ownership, and so on.
December 12, 2008 at 5:02 pm
This would be very unfortunate if it does go through. I can see why it is perfectly logical for this to happen, although I hope that this will not actually happen. The Internet and television seem to be very different to me. Personally, I think the Internet is too large to contain into a system like this. Clearly, there are an enormous amount of television channels, but I believe if you compare it to the amount of websites on the Internet it is a very, very miniscule fraction. I also think this would hurt the Internet in many ways. We should stop turning this world into one big scam and leave it as it is.