Net Neutrality Is What We Want!

    Most people have heard of net neutrality, seeing as it has been a hot commodity on news channels and all over the internet, but do they really know what it means when someone says they are for or against net neutrality. The way it was explained to me was that it is the principle that the companies that provide internet services should give the consumers the connection to content and applications equally. Net Neutrality would stop internet service providers from favoring some sources and blocking others that say doesn’t pay as much as others. In other words the internet service providers cannot charge content providers for speedier connections to their clients, other known as “fast lanes” for the internet. This also takes out the opportunity for internet service providers to deliberately slow down content providers that compete against them. Such as Comcast slowing down the streaming bandwidth for Netflix but speed up the connection for their own NBC streaming service. Netflix might not have been as worried as others since they have the billions of dollars to spend on purchasing these fast lanes, but when it comes to small startups that require data transfer or streaming services that compete with Comcast they don’t have the money to shell out.

    This is not only related to our home network connections to the internet but includes the services we use on our mobile devices as well. Back in 2011 Google announced that they were going to release a product called Google Wallet and it allow customers to pay for stuff with their phones. The first phone with this capability was released by Google called the Google Nexus and shortly after Verizon launched their version of the same phone yet it lacked a certain feature. Verizon had blocked the use of Google Wallet with their version of the phone. This brought great dismay to many customers and drover them away from using Verizon’s services. This worked directly against a set of directives Verizon agreed to when leasing the spectrum from the FCC that included “Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire:”. These are the types of incidents that Net Neutrality is trying to solve and prevent from happening in the future. This will not only allow people to have less restrictions depending on what carrier they decide to go with but will turn the internet back to the way it was designed to be, a way to connect and communicate freely amongst the internet.  

Monopoly isn't just a board game

The definition of Monopoly is not just a board game everyone thinks takes way too long to play, it is the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. In other words one company cannot be in complete control of a products trade or service. The most recent example of this was the merger of two of the biggest cable companies, Time Warner and Comcast, that was rejected by the people and FCC. How is this related to the topic that this blog has been all about, net neutrality. If the merger went through, it would mean that they would have control over the pricing of internet since there would be only be an insignificant amount of competition in that industry. Comcast would have been able to put restrictions on services and overly charge people for their inferior services. Many were concerned that this merger would ruin cable television and internet services since both Comcast and Time Warner had a bad reputation already when it came to service.

In my opinion this is the wrong way to go about doing business and shows that those companies are focused on making the money and not provided reliable and reasonable services to the people of the United States. Companies like Comcast are the ones that are driving people away from technology in some sense. The availability is control by the companies that provide the service and if they only provide mediocre service for an unreasonable price more and more people are not going to purchase their services. This makes the internet unreachable by the less fortunate in society. Companies like this need to get off their high horse, jump back down to reality, and do things the right way. Instead of throwing millions of dollars at their competitors only to buy them out and take over their customers. Compete with each other to provide the best service that you can and do so for the most reasonable price.

Ever since this was proposed 14 months ago Americans have spoken out to the US government to stand up for them and not allow this to happen. Millions joined the fight against this merger and several big named groups came out and expressed their view on the subject, including six different senators calling on regulators to block the deal from going through.. Eventually stopping the merger in its tracks and making a big step forward in protecting our rights to connect and communicate with each other and the masses.

Free Internet?

Internet.org is a huge idea that will involve billions of people and has the right idea. Internet.org plans on bringing the 2/3 of the world that is not connected to the internet, the infrastructure and services that are required for connection. Their idea is to make all the components that go along with the internet, more affordable, efficient, and use business models to create the infrastructure needed. I think this is a great plan and will allow less fortunate countries to flourish with their own ideas, since they will have access to the research needed. This will also bring better communication and could potentially increases the standard of healthcare in these rural areas. But what really comes out of this massive effort to connect everyone in the WORLD, more surveillance and meta data mining?

Although this looks like a solid plan, it has its holes here and there. Now Internet.org does not just simply give the “Internet” to all the rural areas of the world. The plan is to offer an app that allows people to access 38 websites as of now, that Internet.org have chosen to be available. Who makes the call on what websites are available? How does one go about getting on the list of available websites? These are all questions and concerns that have lead several companies to abandon the platform. Some people consider this going against net neutrality, only allowing certain company’s websites to be available within the app.

This app still needs web access and even though Facebook isn’t paying for the services provided by the cellular companies that allow this web access, these companies benefit when people pay for the broader, more unrestricted access. Even though most of the information on the app is covered under the free services, there are still links to the outside which require the users to pay for wireless services. I feel like this is just another way to market the big time companies and allow them get every penny they can. Offering minimal services only to taunt them into eventually wanting more and paying for their services.

Influence of individuals

Edward Snowden's Influence on Internet

 

While moving his way up through the ranks as a system administrator for the NSA, Edward Snowden was exposed to massive amounts of information that most people would never lay eyes on. He decided that this type of information should not be hidden behind closed doors and that the people it effected needed to know what was really going on. In June 2013, he began to leak thousands of classified documents dealing with global surveillance programs that are used today. This caught the attention of millions and started a huge debate regarding the balance between national security and information privacy. A documentary was created on the exchange of these classified documents with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, two journalists, selected by Snowden himself, who would help him share this information with the world. One of the more startling facts that came out in the documentary was the realization that the United States had 1.3 million people on the "watch list." Meaning that 1 out of every 300 people are considered terrorists in the United States and are being watched very closely by the government. For me, this mind blowing statistic shows that the government is overusing their powers without us even knowing. This topic poses a thin line between right and wrong. Although it is an intrusion on the privacy of our citizens, it allows a more watchful eye on harmful online activities. My opinion on the matter is simple, let the government watch what I search on the internet. If I am not doing anything wrong, then I shouldn't feel the need to hide what I am doing. On the other hand, I don't think the government should have the ability to know private details of my personal life, such as when I take my dog out for a walk. This is exactly why this topic has been debated for so long, where do we draw the line?

Welcome

A Little About Myself

   Welcome all to my blog, my name is Aaron Jones and I am currently going to school for a Computer Science degree and working full time at NantHealth as a Quality Control Software Engineer. Being in the field of computer science and the recent events pertaining to the regulation of the internet by the government has sparked my interest and has driven me to start a blog about these types of events and how they effect the common people. I will try and cover everything from the government trying to created a fast lane on the internet to Edward Snowden leaking government secrets on how they monitor the people of the United States.