Net Neutrality: Black Women Saved Alabama on Tuesday:
Unless you are hiding under the rock for the past year, you have heard that Net Nutrition has been mentioned repeatedly in the news, especially in the last month. Because until we do nothing to stop this, the Federal Communications Committee chairman Ajit Pai has decided to vote on Thursday, which will completely eliminate it – and it will be bad for everyone.
Net neutrality knows us as an open Internet. The way things are set up right now, you can easily obtain The Route as you can to Facebook or Amazon.com or New York Times. In addition to sites blocked by firewalls your employer may have established, you have open access to any website you want Net neutrality makes this possible. This is the idea that everyone should use everything No matter how much, as long as the internet is used.
We have already seen what happened when internet service providers decided that they were not getting a big share of the pie while talking about broadband data. Three years ago, Netfix had increased customer service costs for its streaming service, and it was a direct result of the fight with ISP, including the comcast, AT & T and Verizon.
ISP was accused of slow service (called throttling) when their users streamed Netflix content even though consumers (you and me) already paid both Netflix and our ISP to stream the video stream ISP felt that Netflix should pay premiums for instant video content through direct connection of ISP.
Netflix had fought it earlier, but eventually yielded pressure and paid the money. Netflix passed that cost with its customers as the value of the prices. Back to the time when Netflix was settled, it was a big deal because it was an indication of the coming things, being a large, profitable company, Netflix could break bread with big internet companies, but what about small businesses? How can they compete in this kind of market?
This concern is still high. One FCC abolition of net neutrality protection The Obama administration has opened the door for ISP, which gives priority to what content to others on the Internet. Voices and silent people will be ousted Even scary, it opens the door to create a package program for your provider, in which you have to pay different prices to access different types of content on the Internet. How many people will be priced?
And think about this: Suppose your ISP decides to make a company that provides a streaming video service that has Netflix. The refusal of pure neutrality means that ISP can stop access to Netflix and force you to use its product. Pure neutrality means the death of the open market. It’s bad for everyone This will be the biggest hit of social media users if ISPs are able to pay you for a separate package to reach Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other social sites, so many people who are able to buy it Will not be there.
This will affect people running small businesses. This will affect those workers who use social media to organize and get information. This will affect those creators who use social media as a vehicle to promote their art. Social media is a major tool for the people of color, especially for the spread of important information. If this happens, then which first voices will be silent? Do you think that is not part of the plan? This will affect the poor people unbalanced. They cannot pay for tiled data plans. Those websites cannot pay for fast lane access. People who depend on finding a job on the internet will be impressed.
There are a lot of people here, who do not have access to the internet at home and instead have to go to the local library to see information, research and job searches etc. If you live in a city like mine, you know that public libraries will usually have to lose money first to modify the city’s budget, when fast access to some content in your public library, fast-lane internet access or can not the payment of excessive premiums be paid? Then who is suffering?