Net Neutrality

To summarize the term, net neutrality or network neutrality is basically the idea of preventing ISPs (internet service providers) from deciding which websites a user can access [1]. I believe that ISPs should not have a say in what users are able to view over the internet, for the simple fact that they are paying for it. Also, if the forbidden content contains information that they really do not want us to view it should not be on the World Wide Web to begin with or there should be stronger measures of keeping such information safe and protected. Something that we need to keep in mind is that if net neutrality were not existent, ISPs would force users to choose one web service over another. For example, users of the MSN Internet service will only be able to use the MSN search engine instead of Google, while users of Comcast can only use the yahoo search engine instead of the MSN search engine. While there are positives of Net Neutrality there will always be some negative aspect. "Charging different rates for different sites can be compared to cable television, and this makes sense to a lot of internet providers who also provide cable and phone services. [2]" Therefore consumers are paying more in order to get more right? So why is it that ISPs aren't giving them what they paid for? Its only ethical.

If net neutrality were to become non-existent, there would be individuals who would understand the emotions and outrage of ISP customers and would create a whole new system to prevent ISP’s from limiting. Their new system would allow these deprived users the full access of the Internet that they once had with no boundaries and no limits. Wherever there is a demand (unlimited access to the internet), there will be someone or something to fill that demand (a whole new ISP that does not limit internet access and searching but may cost a little more money).

In reality, net neutrality has been an ongoing problem for many countries since the existence of the Internet, especially Canada. In Canada, this issue sparks up some major concern due to the fact that our major ISPs have willingly admitted to censored information through their ISP, controlling and traffic shaping. The principles of net neutrality go beyond those of what users can access and view on the Internet. It also involves receiving what you purchased from your ISPs. For example, I’ve purchased roger's Extreme Internet service costing me roughly $60 a month giving me 10Mbps. At times when I access the Internet it seems much slower than the speed that was advertised so I took it upon myself to check my actual speed online. My findings were that my Internet speed appeared to be much slower than what I’ve purchased. Also, recently ISPs put a limit on how much Gb of information you can view, use and access a month (Net neutrality). It is pretty clear now that the term net neutrality is being pushed aside slowly. The issue of controlling or throttling comes into play when an ISP purposely slows down the speed of user's Internet connections. In this case Bell has already admitted to doing so. Censoring and throttling our online content simply takes money out of our pockets and places it into the pockets of others.