The Internet may be the haven for a world without government control or big business control. Granted, Google may try to track your every move, but software exists to prevent Google from tracking you. The government can try to control the Internet, yet the Internet stands tall. However, Ajit Pai, Trump’s new head of the FCC, has already spoken out numerous times against net neutrality. The importance of net neutrality is the ability to browse the Internet without slowdowns. Do you happen to go to sites that are not Facebook, Forbes, or the New York Times? Too bad, if net neutrality is gone and the sites you go to do not provide money for your internet provider they’ll be slowed down.
Not just slowed down, but AOL dial-up slow; meanwhile, big websites like Forbes will run at the speed you expect because they have the money to pay the astronomical fees internet providers will force them to pay. One can only imagine how allowing the internet providers to pick and choose which sites are quick will foster a new age of online innovation. That’s what Ajit Pai believes. Even name brand site, like Netflix, are against the internet without net neutrality. The picture at the top of the article illustrates what your Internet might look like without net neutrality only with higher prices since that picture was made years ago.
Net neutrality might be the most significant regulation we need as a country. Politically incorrect sites like Reddit, 4Chan, or your favorite YouTuber might get slowed down, if they in anyway, are politically aligned against your internet provider’s cash stream. Maybe Tumblr, Instagram, or Pinterest do not have as much money as Facebook, so their site gets slowed down considerably in comparison to Facebook or Twitter. Your favorite blog certainly does not have enough money to fight off the internet providers. Your favorite no-name blog will most likely be throttled moving at a snail’s pace or not have enough money to continue operation.
You want to make a private server to play a video game; a loss of net neutrality might even impact that. Maybe, since your server is private and not getting the hits that Google gets you may have to pay extra to keep that server running at optimal speeds. A private server is already a massive burden on your system. Your internet provider does not gain enough money from your private server, so your internet speed is throttled. Also, you do not have the money to keep that server running. That is too bad for you because you do not have the cache that Facebook, Google, or Amazon have; let alone their funds.
Obviously, conservative pundits that support the destruction of net neutrality are going to argue that broadband prices are going to level out due to it. Is anyone so naive to think that internet service providers like Comcast, Suddenlink, or even Verizon are going to suddenly lower their prices just because they make more money? They also argue that it harmed online innovation. Interestingly, they believe that slowing down all sites that cannot pay off internet providers somehow helps online innovation.
Is everything Ajit Pai does completely evil? In playing devil’s advocate, we can see that Ajit Pai has some good points. The man did rightly state that the government needs to stay away from newsrooms. He said, “That the government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.” He wants to bring broadband Internet to places without it. Rural Internet access is a problem that needs to be solved.
At the same time, Ajit Pai is like a lesser version of Cory Booker. According to Politico, Pai spoke out against DISH Network taking advantage of an airwaves auction. Still, Pai voted for the rules that allowed this auction to play out the way it did. If he was so strongly against this result, why did he vote for the rules in the first place? He knew things could go awry, but he voted for the auction rules anyway. It sounds kind of like Booker being all for Obamacare, yet voting against imported drugs. It reeks of typical self-serving politics.
Ajit Pai wants to shred net neutrality to pieces. No one likes overregulation by the government. In this case, the alternative is to be held hostage by greedy Internet companies. That is extremely dangerous; especially, with Internet companies already gouging us with price increases, hidden fees, and data caps. Of course, the Internet companies are going to tell you things will get better if we get rid of net neutrality. However, they will not tell you that they are picking and choosing which sites run fast and which sites run slow.
Anything online that goes against big business or the president himself could be shut down. Are you a member of BLM, or maybe you’re anti-banks well if your site promotes those causes and they go against your Internet provider...tough luck. What happens to foreign sites on foreign servers? To those of you that look at porn, conservatives are against porn. Do not expect your favorite porn site to move quickly; it will be slowed down. Maybe, you watch anime online. Those sites are not conglomerates, so they will probably be unable to pay the fees; thus, they will be shut down. No one is advocating for the use of PirateBay or illegal streaming, but speaking candidly people use them. Sites like PirateBay that are technically legal by some technicality certainly will not be protected on the Internet without net neutrality.
If a little regulation leads to a freer Internet, we should stand against Pai’s proposal to gut net neutrality. We should stand for net neutrality. Pai needs to be kept in check and if he makes a dangerous proposal (which he will) we stand, fight, and protest it until he walks away from it with his head down. If you agree or disagree tell me below what you think. Tell me why I'm wrong or tell me why I'm right.