I agree on Internet neutrality to an extent. Since the begging of time generation, to a more modern one. Technology has been a common question to humans. The internet Is one of the biggest Information charring components. One of the biggest question Is should the government set rules for those that control broadband. Theology is growing more and more every day and is changing our lives. Internet neutrality can be possible but there has to be a commitment to be established by all parties involved. It is a great idea to have a neutral internet.
People can argue to they blue on the face about internet neutrality but by doing so the government would have to set rules and generate a common ground for those who are in charge. After reading the articles Julius Showcasing and Kyle Massacres, I can see there points. Julius argues that with out internet neutrality we would lock Innovation, opportunity, and prosperity. Kyle argues that with government Involvement it will slow down the process of technology and It will aloud others unlimited access and this will cause robber with It been over used.
It also states that cable companies have demonstrated commitment to the policies that ensure all Americans to have affordable access to broadband. This argument neutral internet VS. UN-neutral, arises many questions. Government involvement means that they need the personnel to work side by side the broadband companies to assure the it keep running to it require speed. As I see it this will be one of the things that need to be done in order to insure internet neutrality. We all have rules we live by and we need o set rules for the broadband companies so we can have a neutral internet.
Technology changes all the time and this is why the broadband companies don’t want the government Involved. Without rules they Jack up prices and it leave the companies with no choice than to raise the prices to It user. Yes it does slow process to have the government Involved but It also helps the consumers to have a say on what they are paying for, Instead they are Limited on the data they aloud to publish for the prices they pay. This is the only reason that I can see that Kyle said that we would not have internet neutrality.
Like I stated before if the government works side by side with the broadband companies it can be done. When we had dialup it was free we dint have to pay for internet, sure it wasn’t as fast and we didn’t have as much but it was a free for all. I can see that technology has advance and it keep advancing every day but we also have to SE that everything starts small and we take way were everything begins like it was stated in the book all this data processing companies stared small some even a one person in a garage or a dorm room a allege with no founds.
What going to happened to all that would it change so now we have to relay on the big companies to come up with brilliants ideas. Should the internet be neutral By aroused I agree on internet neutrality to an extent. Since the begging of time generation, to internet is one of the biggest information charring components. One of the biggest question is should the government set rules for those that control broadband. That with out internet neutrality we would lock innovation, opportunity, and prosperity.
Kyle argues that with government involvement it will slow down the process of technology and it will aloud others unlimited access and this will cause problem with it been over used. It also states that cable companies have want the government involved. Without rules they Jack up prices and it leave the companies with no choice than to raise the prices to it user. Yes it does slow process to have the government involved but it also helps the consumers to have a say on what they are paying for, instead they are limited on the data they aloud to publish.