Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is a big topic of debate right now. From my readings, it seems that this is due to a split on support and rejection of it. Right now there is Net Neutrality, meaning all information flowing through the Internet is to be treated equally. But as the Internet has become grander there is debate on whether or not to place more regulations and costs on it. Some groups favor Net Neutrality, like Common Cause and Free press. Their stance, along with all the others who support Net Neutrality is that, if regulated, sites will be able to limit content to paid customers. There will be less freedom of expression on the Internet, which would be a huge loss. And there will simply be less use of the Internet period; due to forced payments and a cost to have a speedy connection, people won't want to use it as much. Then there's some people like Scott Cleland, founder and president of Precursor LLC and chairman of NetCometition.org, along with J.S. Macleod, principal vice president and CTO of Bechtel Engineering and Technology, who feel the opposite. Their opinion, along with the rest of the people against Net Neutrality, believe regulation will help stop countless illegal activities on the net. For instance, financial fraud, identity theft, credit card theft, and more, which they believe to be possible through the lack of control of the Internet. Although there are some laws about child pornography, they feel that is not enough. This group sees regulation and charge for the Internet as a way for the business to bring in a greater profit, one which they feel is deserved. In my opinion, there should not be any more regulation put on the Internet. Part of its beauty is that it is free in cost and spirit. To me, there are no legitimate reasons for why it should be regulated, there have not been enough issues to spark a true need for change. And it is simply amazing that it is free to all and open to constant change.