Social injustice is not confined to particular individuals or groups of people within our society. We are all prompt to be victims of social injustice if we don’t fight for what we believe is just. Although our government representatives are suppose to help us in the fight, sometimes they take whichever side is more beneficial to them.
Why don't we look at what defines our government-structure so that we can better evaluate if our representatives are doing a good job. The fundamental structure of our government is based on a representative democracy that calls for government action on behalf of the people’s interest. As a constitutional republic, our government is responsible for making its decisions base on what the majority rules while keeping in mind the minority rights. So, if the government makes decisions that benefit the majority while providing resources to help those in the minority, I would say they are doing a good job. However, are they? Our government often stops acting on behalf of the people’s interest and starts acting on behalf of interests groups, which I like to call "money providers". Many of these interests groups form part of massive conglomerates that have large amounts of money to spend in lobbying and influencing our government’s decisions. Everyday our congress passes legislations that greatly affect our daily lives but that many times we are not aware of. Although some of these legislations may be beneficial to some, it is more certainly that they are not beneficial to many. Since all legislations don’t apply to everyone, we fail to pay attention to those that really affect us all. Such is the case when we talk about the net neutrality legislation.
Net neutrality refers to “the understanding that telecommunications providers should not control how consumers use the Internet by discriminating against content providers who can not or will not pay the additional cost of a premium connection which allows their content to be viewed more quickly by consumers” (U.S. Congress. 2007). Net neutrality is something that affects each and every one of us; as we all know we are entering an "electronic era" that will outgrow other media sources. We should also be concern because it violates our freedom of speech and our freedom to choose what we can access or not access online. Internet providers want the power to favor the highest bidder therefore not giving the consumer the choice to access content from the regular you and me who may have no money to bid. Also, with instances such as AT&T wiretapping our conversations, Comcast blocking us from uploading and downloading files, yahoo scanning through our e-mails, the time has come to make our voices heard and show the corporate giants that we the people have the power over the net; afterall, it is a public service.
Net neutrality initiatives have been arising for a long time and it is time for people to know about them and start getting involved. We need to let our congress know in which side of the issue we stand. It is obvious that when it comes to public issues such as net neutrality, different groups see it from a different viewpoint depending on their personal interest. To companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, net neutrality means that they “can charge more for high-bandwidth services and get a return on networks that cost them billions of dollars to build” (Rash 2006). While to other companies such as Goggle and Amazon, who play the role of “content providers,” net neutrality means that “telecommunications providers need to treat all traffic equally, whether from a small nonprofit agency or from a large, established company" (Rash 2006). In simple terms Internet providers want more money and content providers don’t want to pay more. But the question that remains is which side is fighting for the interest of the common people?
People who are pro net neutrality legislation feel that the Internet doe not need to be regulated. They feel that the Internet was created under the ideology of “free for all.” It functions under a free-market where anyone can use as much bandwidth as they want with no restrictions or regulations. They argue that we would loose the true essence of the Internet if we loose its social aspects; the common person would no longer be able to share his or her stories, provide a service to the community and would not be stimulated to create new and creative content. They feel that the corporate giants have enough power as it is, and that we cannot trust them with more; they have previously betrayed the people and favored the government and their corporate means. A net neutrality legislation supporter points out that the gain of power by these corporate giants has only contributed to America dropping to 16th place on a list of broadband penetration. He argues that “if these companies would spend more money on infrastructure and services and less money on corporate take-overs and lobbying Congress, we could have fiber-optic connections in every home" (Baumann 2006).
Big corporations, argue that “it's in their best interests to keep all Internet traffic flowing at an equal speed” (Hart 2006). Other opponents of net neutrality feel that if we don’t allow Internet providers to make money, they will have no incentive to invest money into new technology. Proponents argue that innovation would be at stake if Congress doesn’t intervene because lots of creative minds like me and you can get shut down. We would not have sites like you tube and my space or any social networking sites that would allow for technology to develop on its own. They believe that if Congress does not get involve America will fall even farther behind in Internet penetration.
If you want to know more about net neutrality check out this video Net Neutrality
References
Baumann, M. 2006. Net neutrality: The Internet’s world war. Information Today, vol. 23 no.8. http://www.infotoday.com/it/sep06/index.shtml (accessed March 28, 2007).
Hart, K. Kehaulani, Sara. 2006. Tech Faceoff: Net Neutrality, In the Eye of the Beholder. Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100138.html
Rash, W. 2006. Four faces of net neutrality. eWeek.com, August 6. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1999848,00.asp (accessed March 28, 2007).
U.S. Congress. 2007. Net neutrality overview: Issues for debate. Congressional Digest, Februrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment