A neutral Net

A debate is currently under way in the US about whether the Internet should stay as is, a leveled playing field in which multinational companies' websites are just as accessible to anyone as the blog journal you're reading now, or if the cable and telephone companies that provide the Internet service (its infrastructure if you will) should be allowed to charge a premium fee that would allow those who pay it to have their websites' information travel faster and be delivered more readily on the digital highways than that of a regular guy's personal website.

Naturally, my position is that the Internet should remain neutral and free, as is now, so that we can all express our opinions and, when necessary, take on the big guys without being faced with insurmountable obstacles that the Internet service providers now say would never be put in place, but that we all now will rise up as roadblocks all over the webosphere.

Just imagine. A company screws you over with lousy service or defective merchandise. You want to make sure they don't screw other people, so you set up a web page where you tell everything about it. However, as soon as the company sees your website, they pay off you provider to slow down access to your website, make it particularly hard to navigate, or outright refuse you service, since the carriers also want the power to block access to sites they don't like or approve of.

That's just wrong and should never come to pass. Especially in a world where even democracies like the one here in the States can be hijacked by a corrupt administration bent on world domination, it is of utmost importance that the individual retain a space where he can express his views and opinions without impediments.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

Cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered Internet, in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority over everything else. Opponents of these plans are supporting Net-neutrality legislation, which would require all Web sites to be treated equally.

One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But this democratic Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access, and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.

That would be a financial windfall for Internet service providers, but a disaster for users, who could find their Web browsing influenced by whichever sites paid their service provider the most money.