Network Neutrality

Taking a break from finals, I found this article about Google backing away from a stance for network neutrality. At stake is the traditional rule that Internet carriers - AT&T and such - don't prefer one content provider - Google, Yahoo, etc. - over another. It seems the carriers want content providers to begin carrying some of the cost burdens. And content providers are seeking for fast tracks - they want to pay to have faster connections.

Here are the pros and cons as I see it:

First, the benefits of a pay-for-speed deal means faster connections for the most successful websites - the ones which we all use. Amazon.com, Google, E-bay, will have guaranteed fast connections. I don't know all the logistics, but I think this means that it will be less common for these websites to go slow. Second, it will increase the ability of AT&T and Comcast and other companies to build high-speed networks. Right now, as they carry all the costs, it is difficult and costly to build these networks everywhere they are needed. But if those companies that require high-speed access are paying for it, then the networks will be built more quickly and we will have faster internet. Third, the quality of the internet will increase. As companies compete for bandwidth, they will need to earn more to pay for it. To earn more, they will need to have higher-quality websites that meet the needs of their users better.

On the flip side of that argument, a lot of people may lose their voice. Right now anyone could make a website and have it seen by just about anyone. With a pay-for-speed system, then all those smaller organizations will load slowly and the big companies' websites will load quickly. People will favor the big and neglect the small. There is a possibility costs could go up, as well. As internet companies begin paying for bandwidth, their costs will increase. These higher costs will eventually end up on the bills of the users.

I better get back to studying, so I'm going to wrap this up. My initial conclusion is in favor of pay-for-speed. I'm in favor of a faster, higher-quality internet. Some people claim working for money kills innovation. Hm...an interesting argument considering the most innovative nation in known history has a market (money) based economy. Were our most innovative men working solely for the public good? I could go into history, but why not consider the topic of this article - Google. Incredible innovators, they have made incredible profits. Some may claim it is out of goodwill and wealth comes to those who do good for others, but I flatly and bluntly disagree (think Mother Theresa). Google is in it for the money. And that is not a bad thing, because as long as they abide by the rules (which they seem to be doing), we all end up better off.