Controversy: Future of the Internet

Controversy: Future of the Internet
(*websites used are made up, except for obvious ones)

An average computer user will ask “Future of the internet? Where is the controversy in that?” Sure, it seems very random that there are any questions related in any way to what we know as the Internet. It is apparent, especially on a college campus where the Internet is intensively used and omnipresent, that the Internet is everything that we want it to be at the moment. We use Gmail for communication, Blackboard for class, Amazon to buy cheaper books, Youtube for entertainment, Facebook and Myspace (still?) to connect to friends. Yes, everything is fine and dandy. There is a sense of complacency among users, because the Internet seems to be providing all they need and all that they will ever want.
Ok so enough about the services provided by access to the Internet. What about the actual access to the Internet? On campus, one has RedRover for wireless and Ethernet, the cord that looks like the bigger brother to a phone line. Regardless of how one accesses Internet, once you’re connected, you’re on, with total freedom to roam any website owned by any of the hundreds of thousands of businesses worldwide. Once you type in those web addresses, be it www.israelrocks.com or www.palistinerocks.com, they will appear in around the same amount of time.
How is that? Well, because the access to the Internet is, in a sense, blind. Ha! Isn’t that such ridiculous word to use for Internet access? The internet doesn’t care which websites you are going to, so it’s “blind.” The access is universally neutral to each and every website that exists in the realm of the Internet; access to a site like www.microsoft.com has the same place in the eyes of the Internet as a less visited site such as something like www.hotasiangirls.com. So what if access decided not to be neutral, but instead to take sides? Internet access likes www.microsoft.com much better and made access to Microsoft’s site faster to load. Hm…
Alright. No more story telling. Here’s what’s happening, straight up. The Internet access as we know it today follows the concept called “Network Neutrality.” Internet access today is neutral and does not give preference to any websites. Um…so is there a problem? Yes. Companies that provide the actual access to the Internet want to change the current model of providing access, to a…non-neutral network. Wait, what?? Internet access providers want to have the ability to give preference to sites they choose. So basically, this turns Internet access into a market. Larger companies will pay more for their websites to have preference and be faster, and of course, no company wants to be slower.
Oh snap. Ok, so now what? Well, this could end the freedom of the Internet as we know it today. There is no way a small company’s could stay even with a giant like Google (once itself a teeny business) in terms of financial resources, thereby hindering the valuable method of online advertising by small firms and startups. Election candidates with deeper pockets can enjoy internet superiority in campaigning. Perhaps the most important question of all is what will the effect this will have on users, who ultimately give purpose to the Internet?
On the other side of the coin, proponents of a “NON-neutral network” give reasons why the change will be for the better. First of all, internet use is growing, booming actually, and that Internet access providers will be overloaded and not perform well enough without giving certain sites preference. Another reason brought up is that giving preference will encourage investment and give incentive to innovation. One analogy given was that the Internet today can be compared to the spread of wired phone systems years go. Phone providers offered the wireless phone as a superior product. This was initially very expensive but eventually because a common item.
So, now, do you think the Internet should forever stay the way it is now or give it the option of changing? Upon choosing the latter option, you must stand sacrificing the ability to freely access the web. Change always seem to be a hassle. Why fix something that’s not broken, just because some businesses want more investments and profits? I am not sure. Sometimes, a step back allows for a leap forward.