1. Do you agree or disagree with net neutrality? Should people have to pay more for high speed internet access or should everyone have the same internet speeds? Why or why not?
2. Do you agree with Senator Cruz about his comparison of net neutrality to Obamacare? Why or why not?
3. Why would corporations be against net neutrality? Do you think the internet is a basic right that should be cheap and fast for everyone? Why or why not?
4. Should the government regulate the internet service providers and force them to provide a 'neutral' internet? Why or why not? Which bureaucratic agency would be in charge of this regulation?
21 comments:
1. I do agree with net neutrality. People should not have to pay more for high speed internet access since the knowledge of the internet is something that should be available to everyone. Having to pay more to have service that we consider pretty standard today is absolutely ridiculous.
2. I do not agree with Senator Cruz. As the article states, his accusation does not really have any backing and is probably a statement to rile up his supporters against Obama. He also accepted campaign contributions from Comcast, and so might be saying things that his financial backers want to hear.
3. Corporations would be against net neutrality because they would want the opportunity to gain more profit by charging their customers more for good service, which they cannot do with net neutrality. The internet should be a basic right for everyone, and limiting it to only the people who can afford it is downright wrong. Like Obama said, we should view the internet as a basic right and it should not be withheld from anyone.
4. The government should regulate internet service providers to provide a neutral internet, because if they were allowed to, they would hike the prices way up and no one could do anything about it. Since such huge corporations control almost all major internet services (i.e. Comcast...ugh), it would be very difficult to get neutral internet without some sort of regulation. America right now has slow internet speeds and high prices compared to countries like Korea with very fast internet speeds and low prices, and these corporations are preventing us from developing into that.
1. I see some positive benefits of net neutrality, however, i'd have to say i disagree with it. There should definitely be a base internet speed that everyone gets, but then if you choose to pay more for higher speeds, you should have that option. This is not something the government should be allowed to or even need to control.
2. To a certain extent, I do see where the senator is coming from by comparing net neutrality to obamacare. Both are trying to close a gap that has been created through social classes and the free market.
3. Corporations would be against net neutrality because it would take the power away from them. They want to be able to control the price of the internet they provide on their own, without the government telling them what they can and can't charge. If everyone had internet at a base speed, they'd most likely end up losing money because no one could pay more for higher speeds. I think that in this day and age, everyone should be able to have access to the internet, however, certain companies such as Comcast have programs which provide some sort of internet access to those who qualify for free lunch at school. I think there should be a base speed and price that everyone can get and then you can pay more for higher speeds, wifi range, etc.
4. The government should not regulate the internet service providers and force them to provide a neutral internet because it interferes with the free market. The Federal Communications Commission would be in charge of this regulation.
1. I believe everyone should have the same internet speeds because it would make communications between people faster if everyone had access to the same high speed internet. Faster are more effective communications between people and places is always a beneficial thing.
2. Obamacare and net neutrality have similarities. Like Obamacare, the government is trying to provide a public desire to everybody. Like now everyone must have access to medical care, the government wants everyone to have access to the internet. However internet access isn't a necessity like health services are, and maybe it isn't the governments place to ensure all civilians have the internet as a resource.
3. I think the internet should be fast and cheap for everyone because it is one of the most (other than the cell phone) widely used technological innovations that everyone communicates on. People and businesses can communicate quickly through email,IM, and social media. The internet is also a resource for people to obtain information, and as an innovation that provides and improves research, it shouldn't be limited in any way. Corporations would be against net neutrality because they would be unable to charge more money for high speed internet.
4. I don't think it's the governments place to regulate private industry internet providers to ensure net neutrality. Private internet providers should set their own standards and regulate themselves. The Federal Communications Commission would be in charge of regulating service providers.
1.) I do agree with net neutrality in the sense that everyone should have access to high speed internet. I feel as though we are ready paying for top speed quality so we shouldn't have to pay even more to get the service we are already paying for.
2.) Obamacare and net neutrality do have some similarities, they at one point are trying to be available to all people but I still do not agree with senator Cruz. It just seems like Cruz is trying to turn his supporters against Obama, top internet speed isn't a necessity like Obamacare is.
3.) Cooperations would be against net neutrality because they would have to give away better quality for a reasonable price, not only that but then there customers will realize that them have been being scammed into paying high prices for awhile when it wasn't even necessary. I do believe we should get what we pay for because if we want fast internet then we can have it but the speed of internet shouldn't be something super important. Technically it already is cheap to some people because you can simply go to the library and get on the computer for free.
4.) I don't think they should make the internet providers run a neutral internet system because some people choose to have slower internet when they could be paying for better quality. The federal communications commissions would be in charge of this regulation If it were to happen.
Digital arts is Kelsey Doering 4A, I do not have a Google account
1. I disagree with net neutrality as people should have to pay more for high speed internet because it is their free will to do so with the money they earn. This is debate about while or not America is a free nation or an equal nation. In my opinion, we are a free nation not an equal nation. Internet is not a human right. You do not need internet to live so therefore it is not a human right.
2. I agree with Cruz because it is getting the government to control another free market place like healthcare. If net neutrality is in play, the big business of internet will be destroyed.
3. The corporations would be against net neutrality because it will destroy the free market place or the democracy that our founding fathers had created. The internet is not a basic right as the internet is not necessary for human life to happen. If this happens what will be next: everyone has to get the same phone as a basic right? This will destroy the choice of life people have now.
4. No, the government should not regulate the internet service providers and force them to provide a ‘neutral’ internet because internet providers would lose money and lose jobs which will create a bad economy.
1. I think that everyone should have the same access to high speed internet regardless because the internet is a free place and should not be controlled by the government. There are much larger things that the government needs to worry about rather than who gets high speed internet and who doesn’t.
2. I do not agree with his comparison of net neutrality to Obamacare. All he is doing is trying to get more people to rally against Obama and make sure that his ratings go down. He knows how sensitive of a topic Obamacare is and how it is not well liked. If he can compare these two things, he can “come up with some better ideas” and try to get people to follow him.
3. Corporations would be against net neutrality because all corporations would only providing the same service, if the basic internet was available and it would become a monopoly with whoever provides the cheapest service. If they can’t provide different services like high speed internet, there wouldn’t be a need for multiple corporations.
4. I don’t think that the government should be able to regulate internet service providers and force them to provide a neutral internet because the government has too many other important things they need to focus on. Not everything needs to be controlled by the government and we should have a freedom to the internet.
1. I agree with new neutrality that everyone should have the same internet speeds. It will be great if everyone had high speed internet but it wouldn’t be much of an issue because many people have been exposed to the different cost according which internet speed you desire. I’m used to if you want a faster internet than you must pay more it’s understandable, I’m not against net neutrality nor do I not have a strong opinion.
2. I can see why Senator Cruz compared net neutrality and Obamacare, they both are trying to sway citizens to the government’s decisions but they are displaying two different issues, one is regarding health-services and the other is technology and communications.
3. Corporations would go against net neutrality because they have would have the ability to charge their customers more or less thus creating more profit than if the government had control over their potential customers. Internet should be a basic right that it would be accessible, cheap and fast for everyone. Internet should be reachable and not limited to the ones that can afford it. Would this happen though? Probably not because of the economy instability.
4. The government should not regulate the internet serve providers and force them to provide a ‘neutral’ internet because it’ll cause them to lose their own customers and won’t differentiate themselves from other providers. Every internet providers would be control under the government and eventually lose employees and the stocks toward that specific company. The Federal Communications Commission is in charge of calling if internet as a basic right,net neutrality.
1. I do see all of the postive outcomes of having internet neutrality and to an extent i do agree with it, however if people want to pay to have faster internet speed, then that is totally up to the customer. If they are financially capable of paying for it then I don't see why not.
2. I do not necessarily agree with the statement that Ted Cruz said about Obamacare being similar to net neutrality. However, I do see the similarities they have with each other in means of they are both extremely government based and government controlled, which is what I believe Ted Cruz was trying to say.
3. Corporations would go against net neutrality because it would not help their business at all, these corporations survive by having the different prices on these different Internet speeds. If everyone would have the same internet speed and for it to be cheap for everyone, then it would not be profitable for these corporations.
4. The government should not regulate the Internet service providers and force them to have a neutral internet, it would would cause trouble in the free market. The bureaucritic agency that is in charge is the Federal Communications Commission
1. I do agree with net neutrality because people should be able to have access to high speed internet without having to pay more than what people are paying now.
2. I do not agree with Senator Cruz about his comparison of net neutrality to Obamacare because he is just trying to get people to disagree with Obama even more and continue to distance themselves from Obama. Because obamacare is a hot topic and many people are not please with the policy, Cruz is trying to get more people to go with what his policies are and agree with what he has to say.
3. Corporations would go against net neutrality because it would essentially not benefit them at all. The corporations would be providing people with the same internet for a low price, it would become easy for everyone to have the same thing rather than having access to things like high speed internet for a higher price for those who can afford it.
4. I dont think the the government should regulate the internet service providers and force them to have a neutral internet, because the government have more important issues to focus on, not everything has to be controlled by the government, especially something as simple as this. The internet providers should be able to set their own standards without the government sticking their noses into everything.
I agree with net neutrality because it broadens our freedom, which is what was claimed as the real point being argued in the net neutrality issue. For similar reasons, I believe that there should be only one internet speed, whatever that speed is; high or not, simply because it allows everyone to be “on the same page” so to speak and give everyone the same opportunities and access.
I do not agree with Cruz and his comparison of net neutrality to Obamacare, because critics of the comment states, it’s not about government control and what the government can/cant, should/shouldn’t do, it’s solely about the rights and equality of the people.
I think that corporations would be against net neutrality because charging people more for faster internet is an easy and seemingly justifiable way for those responsible to make more money. While I wouldn’t necessarily consider internet in itself to be a basic right, I think that the principle of fairness is exemplified in the idea of everyone having the same speed of internet at the same low price.
I don’t think that the government should force internet service providers to provide neutral internet, but I do think that the government should incentivize it because in my opinion is a good program and plan, but forcing people do to things encourages unnecessary resistance and animosity, as force is taking a basic right away in itself. The Federal Communications Commission would probably take on the task.
1) I agree with net neutrality. Internet is already expensive enough and making others pay more for better service is not helping anybody. It would help everybody if our internet was all the same. We could work at better paces and communicate better.
2) I don't agree with Senator Cruz. His argument makes no sense. He only has one goal in mind and that is to backlash on Obama.
3) Corporations would be mad because everyone would be paying the same amount and they can't make them pay more for higher speed, like they do now. The internet is very important and should be a basic right to everybody. It helps in school and at jobs and its a basic tool.
4) The government should force them to provide a neutral internet because it is fair for everyone. It helps people save money and gets things done faster.
(1B)
1)I agree with net neutrality because people have to pay for something that is so readily available that it makes no sense to pay for it. Everyone should be able to access the same internet speed (high), which would result in communications for everyone and a more accessible society.
2)I don’t really agree with Senator Cruz. He obviously is trying to gather supporters against Obama and Obamacare, and makes accusations without support. Cruz is talking about Obamacare, however internet access and healthcare are two different things, so I feel his claims aren’t backed accurately.
3)Corporations would be against net neutrality for the obvious reason of money loss. Having people pay for higher and better internet access means a profit for the company. Net Neutrality means one payment. Internet is basic right, cheap and fast, and should be supplied for every citizen. It promotes communication and responsibility, and it helps parties get there candidates into office. It is necessary and fair.
4)Even though I think net neutrality should be implemented in society, I don't think it's the government’s place to regulate internet companies’ net neutrality. Internet companies should be allowed their own rules and regulations. The bureaucratic agency that would be responsible if this were regulated would be The Federal Communications Commission.
1. I agree with net neutrality because people shouldn't have to pay more for high speed internet access. Having access to communication and information should not be something that should be restricted because one cannot afford to pay the price.
2. I agree with Senator Cruz in a sense that both net neutrality and Obamacare are trying to provide for everyone, but I do not agree with the implications of his statement. Senator Cruz merely stated this comparison in order to degrade the idea of net neutrality because of the unpopularity of Obamacare.
3. Corporations would be against net neutrality because they would not be able to charge customers for a better service in return for a larger profit. I do believe that having access to the internet is a basic right that should be cheap and fast because people should not be limited in terms of accessing a way of communication and information.
4. I don't think that the government should force the internet service providers to provide a 'neutral' internet because then those companies would lose customers and profit because they wouldn't have a way of differentiating themselves from other companies. However, I do believe that the government should encourage the idea of providing a 'neutral' internet so people would have that equal opportunity.
1. I fully agree with the idea of net neutrality. Why pay more for a better internet service when we can all have it? This is the 21st century, the internet runs most workplaces and even some schools. Everyone should have equal access to internet efficiency so that society may flow better.
2. I do not agree with Senator Cruz and his backlash against Obama. His argument makes no sense at all and is very incoherent. The internet has nothing to do with Obamacare.
3. Corporations would be against net neutrality because it is seen as a hindrance to make money. The internet should be available for everyone because it is very useful for students at school and people at their jobs.
4. I believe that the government already has enough control over everything. It is not necessary for them to regulate the internet service providers. The Federal Communications Commission would be the bureaucratic agency responsible.
1. I believe net neutrality shouldnt really include the governments consent and decisions based upon the prices and service being received. But I agree with people paying for what they get, if you pay more for a better service then you should receive that equal given service.
2. I dont agree with his comparison because on an obvious level it is a different topic. Obamacare deals with a rather more in depth issue where as net neutrality is something a little less. As it said in the article the comparison was just another comment made towards Obama and his decisions of running the government, rather than really addressing the topic of discussion fully.
3. Corporations would be against it because it would be a loss of profit and revenue, therefore every corporation would compete at the same level and some would run out of business entirely. At this point in time the internet is sort of looked at as a right but i perceive it more as a privilege that people pay for to receive.
4. I do not think the government should get involved in net neutrality because it would be one less thing the people of America would have that they can independently decide upon. Though at the moment it may come off as beneficial i believe it should be left entirely up to the services providing the internet.
1. I agree with net neutrality because I believe it's a basic right. Communication is an important aspect of our everyday lives. With the internet, we can access this communication. We can talk to one another, we can look up information, we can stay up to date with the world that we live in. I feel that everyone should have access. A lot of people are already rejected the option of further education due to financial issues; the U.S. is known to be a "Free" country, and I believe knowledge should be free
2. There is an obvious similarity between the two: both are available to any and everyone; however, the comparison was unnecessary. The similarity isn't important enough for them to be compared. Senator Cruz just needed a reason to add in another controversial topic to make this one even more controversial.
3. This would take away corporations' revenues. As I stated before, I do believe it's a basic right because communication is knowledge and knowledge is essential.
4. The government should regulate it because without regulation, people will continue to struggle for something that other people in other countries don't struggle for. The FCC would be over these regulations.
1. I do agree with net neutrality, Americans should have the access to high speed internet to use whenever and wherever they please to do so. The government needs to focus more on other things like ISIS rather than the speed of the internet.
2. I don’t think Cruz’s comparison of the internet to Obama care was necessary. It seems to me that he’s trying to get more people to turn against Obamacare and rally towards policies against Obama.
3. Corporations would be against net neutrality because the prices for the internet would basically be the same and the corporations would all have to compete for customers. This can destroy some different business if there not ahead of the internet pack.
4. No the government should not regulate the internet service providers at all because the government has more important issues to discuss and act upon. The FCC would be in charge of this regulation.
I agree with net neutrality because this day and age is the technology era and everything revolves around the internet. Everyone should be given the same high speed internet at a low cost.
I do not agree with senator Cruz because he is using the comparison with net neutrality and Obamacare to talk bad about Obama and by doing this he is trying to get people to disagree with Obama and Obamacare
Corporations would be against net neutrality because it eliminates competition. There would be no need for big corporations like Comcast and and other providers. Also they would be losing money because high speed access would be available at a low cost.
The government should regulate internet service providers because then the people can get fast internet without having to pay a lot of money for it.
Post a Comment