Net Net

By 04.29.2014 blog

You might have heard the phrase net neutrality being used a lot in the past couple of years. It involves a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Policy called The Open Internet Order, which is a set of rules that says internet service providers have to be open – or not secretive – about their businesses, and it stopped companies from blocking any content published online. But Verizon challenged those rules in court earlier this year – and won their case.

So the FCC has changed its rules in a way that they will hold up in court – and stay within existing laws – to say that companies ARE allowed to accept payment for better service, in this case faster streaming and downloading speeds. And while it might sound like and OK deal if you can afford it, many internet companies can’t compete against giant corporations who want to get their content, and advertising, in front of users. It could also mean that some companies who provide internet service AND content will be able to give preference to their own content over that of competitors.

The FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, explained the thinking behind the FCC position in a blog post. “Businesses like to make money, and so if they have a little too much power, that is what the government is there for and they need to look out for that, and at the same time we don’t want rules that are in place that are going to stifle innovation and gong to make people not want to invest in businesses and new ideas.”

It’s a complicated issue, but it’s also an important one as more stuff in our daily life involves what happens online. We want to know where you stand. Vote in the poll and tell us what you think, then leave a comment explaining why.


  1. Steven Rogers

    The internet needs to stay were it is currently, free and free. If this bill is passed it WILL effect use in more than one way. There’s always something that we can do to show that we don’t want this bill.

  2. Bella

    I think the internet should stay the way it is. I know the companies want to make money, but we need to find things on the internet. If this this happens it would be harder to find things.

  3. Caprice

    I say No why must America be so cruptid that it even thought to take the freedom of the internet from the people

  4. Grayson

    If this was put into effect so many people would have trouble keeping up with current events.

  5. Grayson

    If this was put into effect so many people would have trouble keeping up with current events.

  6. collier messick

    I thank not because it is not cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. Mj Moore

    I don’t think that you should pay for Internet. Schools use the internet for learning. And even if they charge people to use internet, I don’t think people would pay for it. So the Internet company’s wouldn’t make money.

  8. Alex Lyons

    The internet is meant to be free. Both or charge and from corporate control. Sure, there are some things on the internet that should be paid for already such as products and movies… but the internet itself should be free. I don’t want to try and persuade my parents to use their credit card just to access a simple Youtube video or do a simple Google search just because some greedy corporation thinks that the billions upon billions of dollars in the overloaded wallets are not enough.

    Just image having to pay just to share your views on this message board.

  9. Isaac

    No, I think we don’t need to pay more, even if it means faster internet. We already need to pay for Netflix. We all deserve to go on those websites.

  10. Jacob Hinson

    People should not have to pay extra because they have faster internet. It sounds to me like people are just tring to make a little extra money. I feel that if you have good internet that you should be able to keep it. If you have bad internet then you can live without it. Think about the DOMINO EFFECT. If people are charged for having faster internet , people will be upset. If people get upset they may stop paying for their internet!If people stop paying for their internet, then buisnesses will lose money. If buisnesses lose their money,whats going to happen?…. THEY ARE GOING TO BE IN A VERY TIGHT PICKLE!!! If people would keep things the same every thing will be just fine.

  11. Mary- Kate Doss

    It is unlikely that these propossed regulations will be used to acctualy make the internet more open. The government knows that buisnesses will take advantage of the proposed law to restrict access to websites in order to gain more money. It is highly likely that one of three options will occur as a result. Best case scenario, the FCC is creating a villan to create a hero. They will give the companies this opportunity to abuse the law, and then swoop in and stop these companies to get a some good PR. Medium case scenario, The government will bumble in an atempt to scensor our internet and the American public will see this and take action to stop it. We as a country have traditionaly valued our freedoms. Worst case, the government will succede in being able to scensor the internet under the pretense of leaving room for the convenience of faster internet speeds. Convenience being a large concern in the modern world. However, these are one persons fears, not an inevitability.

  12. Amber

    I have to say No to ending Net Neutrality. Managing internet content could slow access to social streaming and small business websites. Prioritizing web flow based on money could ground small businesses opening web platforms that wouldn’t be able to compete with larger companies, thus monopolizing the internet.
    Even if it could make accessing some websites faster, it wouldn’t be an overly substantial improvement and too many people are negatively affected by this to make that worth it. Even the bigger companies like Amazon may have to charge its users more to keep up with the fees from internet providers. I can name lots of people I know who are dependent on Net Neutrality to keep a steady income and if their web access is made too slow by the bigger companies they won’t be able to make an income and they’re servers would be crashed.
    I personally hope this gets shot down by petitions so that the people running these websites can continue living in their own homes.

    • Nathon T

      No because people would not want to spend money for only one website. Or some people must use websites to do work

  13. Gage Bergeon

    If they do make Youtube pay more for say AT&T internet Youtube might just only pay one internet provider and if I don’t have that one I cant get that site.. Also there is that inner fight with Youtube not paying AT&T so AT&T doesn’t let its users on Youtube..

leave a comment