Tuesday, November 10, 2009

It seems almost natural for corporate America to find a way to profit off of everything. We have come to accept these practices as everyday, common occurences. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that internet providers want to start charging users for accessing sites that require more bandwidth, like YouTube or Flickr. It seems that these companies are not already making enough money charging exorbitant fees for what has almost become a necessity in our society, but now they must find new ways to "stick it to the masses."

Thankfully, sites like Amazon, Google, Skype, and Facebook are fighting these impending practices. They feel that the net should retain its neutrality and that all content should be treated equally. I, for one, agree.

Although I am the first to admit that the internet has problems, I also realize how useful the internet can be. The internet has opened up a brave new world of information sharing, communication, and exploration that was impossible only twenty years ago. We are now able to learn about cultures across the world with the click of a mouse. And, we are not only reading about this culture, but we are watching videos showcasing cultural practices, hearing interviews and music associated with the culture, and viewing art that conveys cultural ideals. We would not be able to engage is this multi-media experience if the internet was policed to the point where certain content cost more money. If this was the case, we would be right back to the olden days where the poor are held back from that inalienable right that we call an education, simply due to cost.

Please take the time to read the short article about this issue. I would love to hear what you think...

15 comments:

WestA said...

I also agree that the net should keep its neutrality. In my opinion, charging people to go on different websites that require the use of video streaming is wrong. These companies are already making millions and millions of dollars a year and this is just another excuse to make more money. There is so much corruption in corporate America today, and luckily there are companies like Google who are opposed to this idea.

Arias said...

I believe in the neutrality of websites. Charging money for entering websites is not a good solution to the bandwith problem we are facing today. It is true that our current servers are not providing enough for the incriasing number of internet users, but if you begin to charge money for videos and other things a great amount of those internet users will stop using the internet. This will decrease the number of people that view websites drastically, meaning a loss of money for businesses and coorporations.

Springer. K said...

Yeah I totally agree we pay to use the internet in general, and the money those sites get from advertisements, if they are big enough, is a lot. Hopefully it will stay neutral. Man websites are getting greedy..

Valmonte.R said...

Net neutrality has always caused controversy. It seems inhumane to make someone pay for something they have been getting for free for the longest time. For example, the reason people use Youtube is to watch free videos. If they were to make people pay, it's almost certain that its popularity will go down the drain.

It doesn't even seem neccesary to put a price on websites in the first place. Okay, so it might make sense to make people pay to use Hulu so they can watch "exclusive videos". However, Flikr is just for sharing photos and nothing else. There's no real need to may someone pay for jsut posting some photos.

Moccia said...

I agree the internet is very helpful for us but charging us would not solve anything at all. The reason so many users view the web everyday is because there is so many free benefits. One can look up anything they desire. It could be information for school, games, shopping, or looking for kinds of media. If A price was put to the internet, most people would back away. We would probably not be using blogger if it wasn't free, for example.

Perez E said...

I agree with you on that the internet has opened up a lot of opportunities to everyone. In education alone, we are able to research out of thousands of millions of resources, and as you said not only read about them, but actually watch them wether in picture or video. Unfortunatelly, what you said at the beggining is also true, people try to make a profit out of everything, which is some cases is not a bad thing, but in this one it is, because this would leave millions of people to miss out on the great advantages of the internet.

Sklar said...

Websites these days you always see the little side advertisements everywhere, and I must say they are pretty annoying. Not to mention charging the people more money to even go on these websites is ridiculous! Our world is already expensive enough! Hopefully everything will stay neutral. Charging people for websites is nonsense were already having enough financial problems with our society let's not add this now.

Anonymous said...

Neutrality of the web sites works best. Charging users to use the websites is just criminal. Going on the internet and watching those mindless videos are what give us pleasure. Charging us for it is just evil, we pay enough by being bombarded with pop ups of ads and promotions. It’s just another way that corporate fat cats shake us done for our money.

JLowe said...

I think that net neutrality should stay. The problem with sites where videos are uploaded, like youtube for example, is that even with all the ads everywhere they would still be pulling in a loss of profit. Ads need to be clicked on, and most people ignore them. However, Google owns Youtube and is getting money from other sites. Sites where you can upload photos would be gone in a month if the owners weren't doing some other websites. If Photobucket was not owned by Fox Interactive Media I could guarantee you it could not afford the bandwidth it needs.

Griffin.C said...

charge people money?? thats outrageous, the internet is supposed to be accesible by everyone. No matter how much money you have. If they start charging you to use the internet. Them i dont know whats next.

Kay A said...

We shouldn't have to pay to use the internet. Like Alison said, these companies are already making millions of dollars. If websites like facebook were to make you pay, I think they would lose a lot of business. I know I wouldn't pay to use it. It is sad that companies now are thinking to make you pay to use the interent.

citcioglun said...

I feel like the Internet is a great achievement in human life. Computers are one thing but who would have the ablility to say ok well im going to make some type of connection all around the world so people can talk and browes through the net. I feel like in a few years Internet will be so fast that there would be no problems and just like google ther would be more information to search.

StoyerK said...

Unfortunately for today’s everyday internet users, corporate America continues to grow more powerful and greedy. I, for one, think that charging people to be on a certain website is an absurd idea. These companies should keep their neutrality. They already make fortunes off the websites, why take more from the American people?

Anonymous said...

I agree internet is a very important tool and we pay to use it already. Paying to go to different sites it ridiculous! That is like saying you have to pay to read different pages in a book. I think we should just keep it how it is now and leave it alone!

Santoro G said...

In my opinion, the internet's information should be free to anyone. As you said the internet allows us to learn of other cultures, also it has open up doors to the an almost ultimate expression of free speech, Blogging. With one post, your own personal writing is open to be viewed to the whole world, without any censorship. Making these things cost money as you said would again make the poor uneducated, thus making the gap even larger.
I do think that if information on the internet had a price, a huge market would be established, allowing another pot for money to gather. Is this good or bad? I think another argument, but interesting blog Mrs. Stoklosa