Net Neutrality

Standard

Irving the giant lizard here. Today I shall talk to you about net neutrality. Yes this is a blog about film news and there hasn’t been a single post about film news, but net neutrality is in danger. The fact that net neutrality is in danger really makes me angry; it makes me so angry I could destroy two entire cities. However, I’m a lazy giant lizard so instead I will go over an article reporting the recent situation net neutrality finds itself in.  This article is by Marguerite Reardon and can be found here on cnet.

The article reports the recent news of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) losing net neutrality in a court case against Verizon Communications. The article makes clear that Verizon Communications is not the only internet provider that wants net neutrality done with, because they pretty much all do. A technicality is the reason, reported by the article, that the court ruled in favor of Verizon Communications. The technicality is that the FCC had categorized internet providers as information providers, but had put them under the rules of “common carriage” which are rules for telecommunication services. The court did rule, however, that the FCC had the right to regulate the internet. This has put the FCC in a frenzy to create new rules that can hold up in court so that net neutrality may survive before internet providers impose on their customers. Democrats, in both the Senate and House of Representatives, have introduced a new bill to protect customers while the FCC works on making new rules. The prospects don’t look good for this bill though since Republicans haven’t been in support of net neutrality in the past and the Democrats have been split on whether or not a bill is needed to insure neutrality.

In this article there is a bit of time spent of what Democrats think about net neutrality, but there is only one statement about what Republicans think of neutrality. I would have like to see some more on what Republicans think of the current situation; not what they’ve done in the past. I don’t think Reardon favored the Democrats in her article. It just would’ve been nice to hear more about the Republicans. Reardon does remain pretty neutral, but support for net neutrality does begin to seep through her article. She uses words like protection and talks about the issue in a way that makes it seem like people are scrambling around to save neutrality before the evil internet providers hurt their customers and therefore hurt citizens of the U.S. If net neutrality were done away with I think the effect on film journalism would be negative, but it would not be devastating. Since these sites aren’t that popular, compared to others, access to them would just be slower than what it is now and probably cost more.

Net neutrality is an important issue. It affects the accessibility of information and the price of the internet. Without neutrality internet providers could discriminate against certain websites and favor others. This would be a very powerful ability.

Reardon has written a good article that explains the current situation, in regards to net neutrality, effectively. Reardon uses the basic facts and remains pretty neutral.

If your interested in net neutrality (you should be) then I would recommend researching the issue a little more thoroughly. Make sure to look at both sides of the issue and the implications of neutrality being done away with. After doing the above, I’d recommend hand writing a letter to your elected representatives explaining your position and what you would like them to do about it.  Talking to your family, friends, and co-workers also helps.

Anyways I have to get back to destroying cities. Have a good day!

-Irving the giant lizard