In defense of net neutrality
In defense of net neutrality
The internet should remain free - websites should remain unfettered. The ISPs don't own the internet any more than the government owns the internet. Yet, in this analogy, the ISPs want governmental control over the internet, determining the speeds of access, in a similar vein as the Chinese and North Korean governments, blatantly banning and censoring websites.
The ISPs provide a service, in the same way that the government provides a service of representation, and rights protection, to its citizens. Government officials are compensated by tax payers, and are obligated then to listen to the people - the ISPs are no different, with the obvious exception that they are not elected (perhaps that needs to change, being that they continue to attack the free and unfettered internet). Imagine if government set up a system where hearing and approving legislation was levied out as a privilege to those that could pay for a quicker hearing. (Perhaps we don't have to imagine it!) Imagine if the court system heard cases on the basis of a theme park fastpass! This is the analogy! The ISPs want to “fastpass” the internet like it is a theme park ride. This is not what the internet is in any purposeful understanding.
The internet, in this digital age, is equivalent to the town square. Twitter has literally stated this capacity. So if this is then the case to be defended, it should be understood that any “throttling”, or speeding up, of a website's place within the town square; within the marketplace of ideas, is, an abridgement of free speech! And, more sinisterly, the ISPs could throttle websites into virtual nonexistence, giving them a perfect tool for spinning narrative into “knowable truth”, or better understood, they can determine what is seen and what is unseen. This is no different than censorship. Imagine if some online news sources didn't (or couldn't) pay for the fastpass, but others did? Narrative, and truth, would be determined by money. (Another hole in which pay to play, and money in politics will peak out it's reeking, ugly head!)
The ISPs can charge whatever they want for access to the internet, and I will fight back on ethical grounds, but to charge a price on the other side as well, effectively determining what I will see, I will fight on moral and constitutional grounds, for there, they are abridging my rights. If this were the electric company, it would be like me paying my electric bill, but finding, upon turning the lights on, that the electric company has determined that only some of the lights in my house will be powered enough for me to be able see in the dark! - because the search for truth is a dark path, intent upon enlightenment, but the ISPs would see that my “enlightenment”, is determined by money. The ISPs own the infrastructure; they own their own hardware, but they do not own the internet, and as such, I will not see them sell greater speeds to those that can afford it. I will not have my enlightenment determined.
But if these words fall on deaf ears, or find themselves within the teeth of a shredder, and the internet finds herself in the clutches of businessmen, I will nonetheless survive without her. And for those of us who find our words squelched and ignored, I would still hope that the world did not need to hear those words, and was in fact better off without our noise. But if the many unanswered questions of time do find their fulfillment in the voices silenced by money and greed, and tyrannical power, the taste of vindication in these mouths will be a sweet, yet overly decadent fruit. This is my voice; my ideals, hardened by my resolve, though perfectly ready to admit their failure. That's what makes them ideals.
The internet should remain free - websites should remain unfettered. The ISPs don't own the internet any more than the government owns the internet. Yet, in this analogy, the ISPs want governmental control over the internet, determining the speeds of access, in a similar vein as the Chinese and North Korean governments, blatantly banning and censoring websites.
The ISPs provide a service, in the same way that the government provides a service of representation, and rights protection, to its citizens. Government officials are compensated by tax payers, and are obligated then to listen to the people - the ISPs are no different, with the obvious exception that they are not elected (perhaps that needs to change, being that they continue to attack the free and unfettered internet). Imagine if government set up a system where hearing and approving legislation was levied out as a privilege to those that could pay for a quicker hearing. (Perhaps we don't have to imagine it!) Imagine if the court system heard cases on the basis of a theme park fastpass! This is the analogy! The ISPs want to “fastpass” the internet like it is a theme park ride. This is not what the internet is in any purposeful understanding.
The internet, in this digital age, is equivalent to the town square. Twitter has literally stated this capacity. So if this is then the case to be defended, it should be understood that any “throttling”, or speeding up, of a website's place within the town square; within the marketplace of ideas, is, an abridgement of free speech! And, more sinisterly, the ISPs could throttle websites into virtual nonexistence, giving them a perfect tool for spinning narrative into “knowable truth”, or better understood, they can determine what is seen and what is unseen. This is no different than censorship. Imagine if some online news sources didn't (or couldn't) pay for the fastpass, but others did? Narrative, and truth, would be determined by money. (Another hole in which pay to play, and money in politics will peak out it's reeking, ugly head!)
The ISPs can charge whatever they want for access to the internet, and I will fight back on ethical grounds, but to charge a price on the other side as well, effectively determining what I will see, I will fight on moral and constitutional grounds, for there, they are abridging my rights. If this were the electric company, it would be like me paying my electric bill, but finding, upon turning the lights on, that the electric company has determined that only some of the lights in my house will be powered enough for me to be able see in the dark! - because the search for truth is a dark path, intent upon enlightenment, but the ISPs would see that my “enlightenment”, is determined by money. The ISPs own the infrastructure; they own their own hardware, but they do not own the internet, and as such, I will not see them sell greater speeds to those that can afford it. I will not have my enlightenment determined.
But if these words fall on deaf ears, or find themselves within the teeth of a shredder, and the internet finds herself in the clutches of businessmen, I will nonetheless survive without her. And for those of us who find our words squelched and ignored, I would still hope that the world did not need to hear those words, and was in fact better off without our noise. But if the many unanswered questions of time do find their fulfillment in the voices silenced by money and greed, and tyrannical power, the taste of vindication in these mouths will be a sweet, yet overly decadent fruit. This is my voice; my ideals, hardened by my resolve, though perfectly ready to admit their failure. That's what makes them ideals.