You would think Net Neutrality would be like that “No child left behind” program, where every child (read:site) gets educated indiscriminately (read:indexed and allowed to be viewed in your pc by your internet provider). Well, it isn`t. Read the legalese here.
It`s just another ploy to monopolize how public the internet is. As technology becomes more and more accessible to everyone, it depreciates. TV can now be watched in your PC or stream ready TV, bypassing cable. Information is at your fingertips without having to purchase a single byte of information. Phones have now surpassed computers in speed and convenience, making them the ultimate computers.
Image courtesy of Flirt Couture.
But what does the Net Neutrality means to you and me?
- Though they mean to deliver internet content in a neutral way, they don`t. This may mean that your Yahoo mail will load with no problems, but other services like Netflix or Facebook may be purposely slow, obligating to subscribe to a “package” that allows social networking or movie watching.
- Businesses with money would be able to monopolize content. The internet would return to its early days of crazy ads and content. Businesses would pay to have their sites “preferred” by your internet provider. This would mean small businesses would fail almost instantly.
- Instant celebrity is over. The internet has provided a immediate venue to create an identity, and for those talented enough, instant celebrity. Innovative products would be unheard of, talented artists would remain starving and new ventures would wither away before they sprout.
- Paid propaganda. Political propaganda, or any propaganda cause, would be biased to those who sponsor that particular internet provider, making freedom of speech, more like freedom if you can afford it. (Though with this past crazy election, political views may be something I will not miss.)
- Internet marketing would be a game of millions. Marketers would have to be in cahoots with internet providers, or at least with businesses who are in the “in crowd” in order to create partnerships. I also suspect that small businesses could “piggy back” with big companies, creating services that may allow small businesses to be preferred by internet providers.
- The internet providers would tier their services. This means if you are a social networker, you may want the social networks package for 15 bucks more or if you like games you may want to get the gamer package for 20 bucks more, etc. This however would mean pornographic content could be blocked or would have to pay extra if you fancy that content.
- Pay to be hip. Websites that are free for their services, would now have to charge to support the hefty fees imposed by internet providers.
Certainly, my hopes are that this does not happen.The internet has been a blessing to those of us who have been clever enough to harness its power. Evolving with technology is vital, but when the vitality of the resources are monopolized by big companies, we all suffer.
Resources
- http://io9.com/5610328/how-the-googleverizon-proposal-could-kill-the-internet-in-5-years
- The Googlezon proposal also includes a lot of suggestions for changing the role of the FCC in regulating the internet, which EFF’s Cindy Cohn explains admirably here.
- Ars Technica has done a terrific job summarizing how the Googlezon agreement destroys net neutrality.
- There is a great collection of opinion pieces on the agreement at the New York Times (which you can still access without the “special news service” package).
- Many years ago, futurists Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson made a video called EPIC 2014 about how media culture would be destroyed after Google and Amazon joined forces and became Googlezon. Today we face a similar threat, from a slightly different pairing – but the mashup name of the two companies remains the same.
Cited from io9.com
