"Net Neutrality" Good or Bad?

1. Net Neutrality is the principle to keep the internet open to all users without any discrimination. It protects rights to connect with any other computer in the world without limitation. It means that internet providers can't speed up or slow down sites depending on their source or how much they pay for keeping their web page online. Networks job is to keep a steady flow of data and not decide which sites should get faster or better service.

2. The backers of net neutrality are as fallows: Amazon, Google, Ebay, Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, Facebook, all democratic candidates, and more. The argument for net neutrality is that is keeps free and open internet for all people. It does not allow any discrimination whether its Google or my blog. They still get equal access and space on the internet. It does not allow the discrimination of speed, therefore no site can pay more for better access or speed. It protects small business, non-profit orginizations, and bloggers. It maintains free-speech and consumers rights for all internet users, no matter what the content is.

3. The backers against net net neutrality are as fallows: Comcast, verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, and more. There are federal laws already in place to keep internet access rates fair. Sherman anti-trust act of 1890 protects from any market power to use their network unreasonably to maintain, or gain a monoply. Therefore no strict rates for users, different pricing and tiered access neogotiates for how much you will pay depenging on how you use the internet. It provides the networks to be able to invest in the internet and be sure that they can gain back their investment. Their investment would mean more jobs to create these new technologies. It would stop spam, piracy of multi-media, and bottlenecks caused by overflow of use by specific sites. It allows networks to stop online violence such as sites posing death threats or hate messages. Allows the United States to keep up with Internet technology and use network that is over flowed with spam on streaming online television, and games.

4. Although, I do agree that spam on the internet is a rising and annoying problem. A problem that seriously does need to be delt with, I still am all for net-neutrality. The Internet was based on the idea that people can network with anyone in the entire world. Opposing net-neutrality would cause and unfair superiority in sites that can pay more for access. Meaning that Yahoo will maintain its fast speeds but emerging creative and intovative sites such as Ebay or YouTube could never have got a start. Which will diminish creative and inventive ideas by people just like you and me. Leaving the only new internet creations to large corporations that only work for what they know will gain them income. Google, YouTube, and Yahoo and started with small people just like everyone else and thats how the internet should remain. It is our right of free-speech and our right to have every bit as much access as individuals as do the large corporations. I am all for the intovation of new products to make streaming video, and games faster, adminish spam, etc but not at the cost of free-speech and the loss of the individual in the internet.