Net neutrality is the assurance that you will have both access to the Internet and that content will not be blocked, slowed down, or sped up depending on where that access is based or who owns the access points. Net neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity, and innovation.
There has been much debate about the Government regulating the Internet? Net neutrality has given us the ability to communicate with people all over the world in order to do our jobs, go to school, or for personal enjoyment. This access has been provided without any restrictions. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not to choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.
The bill that has been presented to Congress on Net Neutrality is H.R. 3458 Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. I have attached the link for this bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:7:./temp/~c111kj7cfc::
Congress now appears less likely to pass the bill during this session because the lawmakers are unable to come to consensus on key provisions. The current stumbling blocks include questions on how broadband access rules should apply to wireless networks. There is some agreement however for the basic rules that would forbid a wireless service provider from blocking a competing application such as voiceover Internet calls.
Interesting issue. I wonder what argument strategies the law-makers are using to justify the proposed regulation. It also may be interesting to compare this debate with the regulations that other countries impose on Internet usage, and any debates that surface because of it (I am thinking about the regulations that China puts on Internet usage). I would be curious to see what rational are given for regulation in other countries (is it just because of an oppressive government, or are there other, more developed rational?)
ReplyDelete