The Internet is Coming to an End
The internet is a fascinating system. Developed over two decades ago, the internet has now evolved into a powerful and unstoppable force. Yet, everything that involves humans must have its flaws. These flaws must be protected and depending on the goodness of people is not enough. When the internet was created in the late 1900s, no one thought it would ever turn into the controversial topic that it is today because so many people enjoyed it with almost no complaints. However, the internet has now taken a step into the spotlight and has become a major concern. Policies need to be made to protect, advance, and preserve the internet. Net Neutrality does all of those things for the internet and its users. Therefore, mankind needs to make every possible attempt to preserve Net Neutrality. Or else who knows, the internet might die before mankind can reach extinction.
Net Neutrality also allows for equal Internet Speeds for everyone and Internet Service Providers can’t pick and choose who gets faster internet. According to Joe Curtis author of “The Pros and Cons of Net Neutrality”, “At its core, net neutrality is the concept that all internet traffic should be treated fairly, without unfairly penalising or prioritising traffic from a given domain, service or publisher.” These policies allow internet users to use the internet without any discrimination. Regardless of their income, ethnicity, or gender, anyone is allowed to use the internet as they please. Without these policies, Internet Providers would have the ability to control their distribution of speeds to their customers. Author, Clint Finley, of “Here’s How the End of Net Neutrality Will Change the Internet,” argued that “INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS like Comcast and Verizon may soon be free to block content, slow video-streaming services from rivals, and offer “fast lanes” to preferred partners.” If a company prefers Yahoo over Google, they’re going to slow down the speed of Google under certain carries. Allowing Yahoo to become the more dominant search engine, increasing their profit. The only possible way for Google to become “faster” is to pay more which could put Google at a higher risk of going out of business altogether. This scenario could also be applied to situations involving normal, every-day people. Internet Providers would give everyone these “slow lanes” and the only way out of them is to pay extra for “fast lanes” and those faster speeds might still not even be good enough. Mobile devices would see the most drastic change since consumers already have limits on them. Internet Providers could shrink the amount of data you are able to use and make it more expensive to access more than the current given amount. Mehreen Kasana, author of “Here’s How Repealing Net Neutrality Could Change The Way You Use The Internet”, explains thoroughly why the internet is so important and essential for its consumers’ to protect through Net Neutrality, “This set of rules protects everyday internet users, like you and me, from the whims of massive corporations looking to make an extra buck. Net neutrality mandates companies to treat all internet data as equal. They can’t speed up, slow down, or hide any kind of internet content from users.” Which is exactly why mankind needs Net Neutrality. Without its policies, large corporations will nickel and dime its customers for every last penny they have. Without Net Neutrality, internet speeds will become throttled and people will have to pay more to access certain content. In order to preserve the equality of the internet, we must protect Net Neutrality and ensure that the internet remains equal.
One of the major necessities of Net Neutrality involves students. In this technological age, pretty much every student needs the internet in order to complete assignments for school. Most of the work that is done on the internet now would not be possible without Net Neutrality. Students would not be able to do their homework. Finley Klint, author of “FCC Plan to Kill Net Neutrality Rules Could Hurt Students,” claims that “Video plays a growing role in the education of students like Williams who turn to video conferencing, streaming lectures, and other forms of high-tech distance learning to complete or extend their educations.” Clearly, without Net Neutrality existing to protect the access of students on the internet, students like Nichole Williams would not be able to learn. Leaving the high possibility of more failures in school because students won’t be able to afford the prices if Net Neutrality is repealed. Resulting in more dropouts and increasing the number of our nation’s unemployed. If it gets repealed, Ms. Williams will fall into the trap of “slow lanes” and she will be forced to pay to get out of it. She lives by the City so online learning is important to her because she doesn’t have to drive in order to get the quality education she needs to graduate and to succeed in the workforce. Without Net Neutrality “major ISPs will be able to promote the media companies they own — like this one — while punishing competitors’ offerings”, according to Paul Blumenthal, author of “What Net Neutrality Really Means For You (And For Us).” If a student has to do an assignment and the teacher tells them to use a source such as Fox News and their Internet Service Provider doesn’t like Fox News, that source might be blocked for them. If Internet Service Providers were able to control what a student can and cannot use it could result in many students becoming uneducated and unemployed. Inhibiting them from reaching their full potential.
On the other hand, people argue that Net Neutrality is a bad thing and that the internet should go back to its original policies. They that the internet was fine until Net Neutrality was introduced in 2015. The question of why it would be a bad idea to go back to the old way. Before Net Neutrality, consumers could pick and choose what they want instead of paying a big sum certain applications and cites that they did not need nor want. Arguing that some people would only use video and e-mail, so why must they pay for things that they are never going to use like games. Jesse Hathaway, the author of “Ending Net Neutrality Will Save the Internet, Not Destroy It,” stated, “No internet service provider wants to be known for having ‘slow service’ or being ‘anti-free-speech,’ so there’s nothing for consumers to worry about.” Since the Internet Service Providers want more consumers to use their internet, “slow service” would cause their reputation to be tarnished. Influencing their previously loyal customer to find go out and find other internet providers. So in the end, the absence of Net Neutrality would force the Internet Service Providers to the consider the benefits of their consumers more as a priority. The ISPs competition will grow with Net Neutrality allowing more people to join the business of becoming an ISP. The Tylt, the company that authored the article “Is the Death of Net Neutrality Actually Good for the Internet,” wrote, “Internet service providers (ISPs) will now compete against each other, leading to better services and products for the consumer. Prices might actually go down.” Prices going down would cause more competition for consumers leading to more customers for Internet Service Providers. Charging people more or having more consumers? The answer for them would be pretty clear, critics of Net Neutrality claim, more customers would better their reputation and in turn gain their more customers. Allowing their company to make the most money possible. This would then cause a chain of events of people “flocking” to the Internet Service Provider who does not have “slow-lanes”.
People don’t like being blocked by others, but imagine if an Internet Service Provider was allowed to block a popular website with no other reason other than that they don’t “like” or agree with certain ideas and opinions shared on that website. So now consumers are stuck with using the Service Providers preferred websites. However, under Net Neutrality everyone would have access to any website that they wanted. Without it, Internet Service Providers would make companies pay for consumers to access them. Forcing companies to pay more and causing smaller companies such as Discord, a free app for people to chat with each other, to reach its demise. Small companies like Discord don’t have the finances to pay if they were forced to pay more just because an Internet Service Provider prefers a different messaging app. Net Neutrality allows for competition so the consumer gets to pick what they want to use instead of being forced to use one app. People get to express their feelings on whatever they want but if Net Neutrality was repealed every comment and opinion would be censored. Paul Blumenthal, author of “What Net Neutrality Really Means For You (And For Us),” refers to the following statement, “‘No one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn’t,’ Franken said. ‘Facebook, Google, and Amazon, like ISPs, should be neutral in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platform.'” The smaller companies should have the same opportunities to advertise to the masses like the larger corporations. The smaller businesses should not be punished for their size and platform. If the powerhouses, that are big businesses, were to control the internet, consumers would observe less of variety and be stuck with fewer choices.
With Net Neutrality, people are able to post inappropriate things that others don’t want to see. Without Net Neutrality we can deny people from doing that and make sure the internet is a safe place. With Net Neutrality you can restrict websites yourself but some are able to find ways to bypass that. But without Net Neutrality we could deny people who are underage from accessing certain websites without a verification of who they are first. While blocking sites like those it is possible to crack down on peer-to-peer file-sharing and make illegal downloads nearly impossible. People could also pay for only what they want and not extra things that are a waste of money. If people only want the internet and not cable, they could choose that on their plans. Instead of paying for two and only using one service, you could pay for just one service and be allowed to use that service. Also if you don’t use the internet a lot you could pay so you could only get it on the days/weeks you need it the most. Without Net Neutrality prices, overall carrier prices would go down for those who don’t need access to everything and for those who don’t need the fastest speed. Not only that, but it could also cause for fewer companies to pop up on the internet besides the “big” companies. Because Net Neutrality gives everyone an equal ISP causing equal customers so no one company can own the internet.” Net neutrality hurts ISPs because they pay to manage their buildings and offices, bringing them less profit,” says Monica Ramirez author of “Pros And Cons Of Net Neutrality.” With Net Neutrality giving companies equal benefits, and not charging us the consumer it’s forced to charge companies like Netflix. Charging Netflix more to be on their provider than makes us the consumer pay even more money a month to access it.
The dilemma that the end of Net Neutrality presents is all the negative outcomes. Keith Collins, author of “Net Neutrality Has Officially Been Repealed. Here’s How That Could Affect You,” is afraid of Net Neutrality ending and claims, “Many consumer advocates argued that once the rules were scrapped, broadband providers would begin selling the internet in bundles, not unlike cable television packages.” Right now for the internet, you pay for a “Bundle” and you receive access to everything: streaming, e-mail, videos, gaming, and much more. So if you want to access something like Facebook and Twitter, without Net Neutrality, you would have to pay for a “social media premium package”. Which would only allow you to access ONLY social media and may only include two cites. Which could possibly force consumers to pay even more to gain other Social Media sites. Let alone the amount of money they would have to spend on the cites they need on a daily basis. Meaning that life without Net Neutrality would be full of “pay-to-play deals”. Also allowing the gap between the rich and the poor to grow even further and possibly leading to the elimination of the middle class. Net Neutrality is a great possible solution to make sure that everyone is getting the same internet speed.
Without Net Neutrality giving us the ability to pay for bundles, the government is, therefore, guaranteeing that people will have to pay more. “If net neutrality is repealed in the United States, people may have to subscribe to internet packages based on their needs…For someone who uses all of these services on a daily and equal basis — like activists, journalists, teachers, and more — an internet without net neutrality would put a halt to their critical projects and professional networks,” according to Mehreen Kasana, author of “Here’s How Repealing Net Neutrality Could Change The Way You Use The Internet.” Which is becoming truer every day. The internet has become so dominant that you need a laptop or computer for school, to pay bills, and even to schedule doctors appointments. As everyone is turning to the internet for their information, careers are becoming dependent on the internet to the point of almost falling apart due to the demands. Journalists need the internet to be able to report on things that have happened over the weekend. As well as teachers need to be able to post things online for their students to access them. We live in a world where the internet has become a necessity in our lives and if we want it to continue on for many years to come we need to improve it. The majority of the population needs all the packages and if the United States loses Net Neutrality we could be seeing images, like the one below, pop up in our lives a lot more. If Net Neutrality were to be repealed only rich people and rich companies would be able to afford every cite and applications that they needed, while the rest of the general population would suffer. They would be forced to pick and choose what they felt they needed the most.
In order to preserve the equality of the internet, we must establish a protective measure to ensure Net Neutrality and keep the internet equal. All in all, the internet is here to stay and is not going anywhere anytime soon. The problem the internet now possess to the general population is how to handle it, should The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) keep Net Neutrality or should they repeal what Obama implemented back in 2015. An end to Net Neutrality would create cries of outrage. People have now acclimated to the idea of the internet over the past few years and have witnessed first hand the possibilities that the internet presence. Keeping Net Neutrality would allow for companies small and large to gain customers. Consumers can have equal speeds on every website allowing everyone to access what they want when they want. Companies no longer have to compete or pay extra to make sure they get out there first, all companies can receive the same amount of commercial time for generally the same price. Countries without Net Neutrality are making their people suffer. “Slow-lanes”, blocking websites, and creating setbacks for certain companies is just inappropriate. Internet users should not have so many restrictions and limits; businesses should not be punished for opinions. Ending Net Neutrality would cause too many problems if the Internet Service Providers were allowed to control our daily lives. No one should be allowed to control the daily lives of millions of people. Not even a force as powerful as the internet.
- Blumenthal, Paul. “What Net Neutrality Really Means For You (And For Us).” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/net-neutrality-good-bad_us_5a396d07e4b0860bf4ab9e6f
- Collins, Keith. “Net Neutrality Has Officially Been Repealed. Here’s How That Could Affect You.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 June 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/technology/net-neutrality-repeal.html
- Donnelly, G. (n.d.). What Net Neutrality Means for You and Your Time Online. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/what-net-neutrality-means-for-you/
- Finley, Klint. “FCC Plan to Kill Net Neutrality Rules Could Hurt Students.” Wired, Conde Nast, 12 Dec. 2017, www.wired.com/story/fcc-plan-to-kill-net-neutrality-rules-could-hurt-students/
- Finley, Klint. “Here’s How the End of Net Neutrality Will Change the Internet.” Wired, Conde Nast, 6 Mar. 2018, www.wired.com/story/heres-how-the-end-of-net-neutrality-will-change-the-internet/
- Hathaway, Jesse. “Ending Net Neutrality Will Save the Internet, Not Destroy It.” Fox News, FOX News Network, www.foxnews.com/opinion/ending-net-neutrality-will-save-the-internet-not-destroy-it
- Kasana, Mehreen. “Here’s How Repealing Net Neutrality Could Change The Way You Use The Internet.” Bustle, Bustle, 13 Nov. 2018, www.bustle.com/p/how-does-net-neutrality-affect-you-your-internet-habits-could-change-dramatically-7542713
- Curtis, Joe. “The pros and cons of net neutrality.” (1970, July 31). Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://www.itpro.co.uk/strategy/28115/the-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality
- Ramirez, M. (n.d.). Pros And Cons Of Net Neutrality. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from https://www.hercampus.com/school/regent/pros-and-cons-net-neutrality
- Tylt, The. “Is the Death of Net Neutrality Actually Good for the Internet?” The Tylt, thetylt.com/politics/net-neutrality-end-good-for-internet
Figure 1: Khanna, Ro. “In Portugal, with no net neutrality, internet providers are starting to split the net into packages. Pic.twitter.com/.” Twitter, Twitter, 21 Nov. 2017, https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E923701871092441088&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bustle.com%2Fp%2Fhow-does-net-neutrality-affect-you-your-internet-habits-could-change-dramatically-7542713
Figure 2: Khanna, Ro. “The FCC Is Getting Ready to Overturn #NetNeutrality. If They Succeed, ISPs Will Be Able to Split the Net into Packages. This Means That You Will No Longer Be Able to Pay One Price to Access Any Site You Want. Pic.twitter.com/VEkNxPmVlu.” Twitter, Twitter, 21 Nov. 2017, https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/933016966071234560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E933016966071234560&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ffortune.com%2F2017%2F11%2F21%2Fwhat-net-neutrality-means-for-you%2F
4 thoughts on “Research – D2Forsaken”
I was wondering if you could look at my Introduction paragraph. I currently have two quotes in that paragraph and am wondering if I should make it into two paragraphs, another body paragraph and an introduction paragraph. If you have the time and wouldn’t mind, please read my rebuttal as well. Any feedback would be extremely appreciated. Thank you for your time.
I appreciate that you’ve asked a specific question, D2F. I’m more confident that I can help when you narrow your request.
Your opening paragraph is without doubt too long. As I read it, I’ll break it into sections that develop a single main idea. Every paragraph should do so.
Once you practice this first step, D2F, you’ll discover that some of your sections should be combined as they address the same material. Your organization of the overlong first paragraph meanders from topic to topic, returning to the same stepping stones. You fail to guide us carefully, so we get lost and feel we’re circling back to the same landmarks. It’s your job to 1) Tell us our destination before we begin, 2) show us where to put our feet along the way, 3) keep us from being distracted by the scenery.
—You start out promising us you’ll show us the internet’s flaws and why they must be protected. You never deliver on that promise.
—You tell us that Kasana will prove why the internet is so essential, but you don’t deliver on that promise. Instead, we’re distracted by a new claim that the internet might be changed to discriminate against some of us. Is this the flaw that needs to be protected? We’re waiting for that one to pay off.
—You tell us that the Net wasn’t always controversial, but we’re not sure why you think it IS controversial now.
—The sentence that has the best chance of getting you off to a good start, D2F, is this one: “Too many people want to restrict our rights on the internet and it is in our best interest to fight back.” If you start with that one to focus our attention, THEN tell us what our rights ARE, then tell us WHO wants to restrict them and HOW, you’ll have a good outline for your first four paragraphs. THEN, you can go back to the historical perspective, let us in on why this problem is a new and unanticipated one.
Does that help?
Yes! That’s helps tremendously because I was very worried that my opening paragraph was a little messy. So that helps me on what I should do and how I should reorganize my opening.