With the exponential growth of the world wide web over the past decade, the industries of the olden-days have taken their time to keep up with the latest technological trends, always assuming "this one's just a phase." Well, the internet sure as hell isn't going anywhere just quite yet. But in the corporate world's recent game of catch-up with the web, the idea has slipped into their heads that instead of not only paying for access to the web, one should also pay for access to the sites that they regular. Imagine paying four or five dollars a month just to log onto Facebook and update your status, or upload the family pictures. Imagine having to pay eight dollars a month just to watch cat videos on YouTube. It's mind-boggling to think that a price can be put on our daily entertainment and livelihood brought about by the web, yet there has been a recent push to begin the process of doing just that. In this development, however, a backlash has began to take shape. Internet activist groups like the infamous 4Chan basement dwellers Anonymous and other rights-based groups have created a firestorm of disgust and repulsion to the idea of a non-free web, a, "non-neutral web." With recent legislature coming to votes in our national congress such as the infamous SOPA and PIPA, people have gone in an outrage, myself included, trying to rail against this blatant attack at our personal freedom. The FCC's Open Net Order was recently knocked down by a circuit court of appeals, threatening the very nature of our internet freedom, by making it legal for internet service providers(herein referred to as ISP's) to tamper with broadband allocation and data transmission at their own will. Luckily, however, Democrats in the House and Senate have recently began promoting legislation to constitutionally protect net neutrality, which is chugging it's way through subcommittee's and the standard legislative process as I type/you read.
A common response to the idea of net neutrality is that, in the interest of our lovely capitalism and the spirit of free enterprise, that to block an ISP or third-party companies control of the Internet is unconstitutional, out of the bounds of not only Congress or Executive action, but rather any lawmaking body in existence. This is what I call, "a stupid opinion that merits no points given in the game of life." Net neutrality is not a matter of free-enterprise, but rather of the rights of the voice of the American citizen. A struggling American may already have trouble paying for Internet access alone, and then on top of that add a bill to go onto Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, etc.? It is a literal wall put up by ISP's in order to maintain peace in the terrifying world of copyright infringement, government upheaval, and general law and order. Is is analogous to passing a law that would require anyone wishing to speak their opinion anywhere, not just in public, to pay five dollars for a month's worth of talking. But, even then, you still have a limit on the amount of information you can release and consume, or else that's another fee. The attack on net-neutrality is not some heroic battle-cry from the conservative base of Americans in defense of our freedom, but rather, a full-fledged attack on the very foundations of not only our inalienable rights as American citizens, but our rights granted to us as citizens of the world. And that is a breach of constitutionality on the most fundamental level.
Here lies a link to a petition on the whitehouse.gov website to protect net neutrality. While I know that the responses warranted by these petitions has never been desirable, I believe it is in our best interest to let the government know that this is a big. "NO!" https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutrality-directing-fcc-classify-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P
No comments:
Post a Comment