Speak Outs
Speak Out
Who should pay for the Internet?

February 12, 2014

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

In mid-January, a federal appeals court stuck down Federal Communications Commission rules that prohibited Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast from restricting access to any legal website or online content. The court said the FCC didn’t have the right to enforce the rules.

The ruling has spotlighted the issue of “net neutrality,” or a free and open Internet. And it may affect some of your favorite web services like Netflix and Hulu, which could get more expensive.

The case, brought by Verizon, centered on FCC rules that barred Internet service providers (ISPs) from charging websites and web services more for high bandwidth. Essentially, the rules meant that all content, no matter the subject or the size, should be equally accessible to consumers.

A lot of ISPs were unhappy with the rules, arguing that services that use high bandwidth like Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime should pay more for streaming and access to customers.

The ISPs said the federal rules allowed the providers to make a profit only by providing access to consumers. The ISPs argued that because they provide a service, they should be allowed to decide how to deliver it and how much to charge. They want to create different business models, some might even mean lower costs for consumers.

The ISPs propose a tiered Internet, where content providers like YouTube and Netflix would have to pay for their content to be prioritized and to get to consumers quickly. It would be similar to the cable structure for which many of the ISPs already have regional monopolies. Networks like MTV and CNN have to pay the individual cable companies to get their channels into the homes of the cable customers.

If a company wanted to get a high bandwidth, meaning quicker download and streaming times, it would have to pay the ISP more. So the likes of Netflix and YouTube would likely pay more to prevent loading times from piling up, and costing them customers.

Advocates of net neutrality say that the ruling will make the Internet a pay-to-play model, squeezing out the voices that don’t have financial backers and allowing only ones with money to dominate the Web. A company that wishes to exist online would have to pay ISPs to get bandwidth after already having paid website designers and a hosting service to make sure it’s running 24/7. Major players would be in the Internet’s fast lane while smaller ones would be stuck in the slow lane.

What does this mean for you? Nothing, right now. But if ISPs start charging higher costs to websites for services, those sites will likely pass on those costs to consumers. Fee-based services like Netflix are likely to charge more, and free ones like YouTube could move to a pay model to pay for the higher bandwidth that ensures its content loads quickly.

After the court’s decision, the Web’s major service providers said they did not plan to make any changes. The FCC could appeal the ruling or try to rewrite the rules. Or Congress could pass a set of laws.

What do you think?

Should the Internet be equally accessible to everyone? Do you agree with Internet service providers that it is a free enterprise issue? Should people who use the Internet be the ones to pay, or should the sites hosting content? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
3/11/2014
Sidney/MT
Colin
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue at hand is about "Net Neutrality." Many different companies such at Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, and Hulu help is communicate and give us entertainment and satisfaction. The FCC will have to reclassify their guidelines in order for different companies to keep the web services. With net neutrality many say that it will "make the internet a pay-to-play model." If a company wanted to be online it would have to pay ISP's to get bandwidth after they have already paid many other companies for services. If the ISP's start charging higher costs then eventually that will move down to the everyday user of the internet.

3/10/2014
Dixon/CA
Alec
Mr. Hawkins/BCMHS
I think that the cost of digital communications has to be at least in part on the consumer. Judging the internet based on the technology it grew out of, that being telephone lines, I would say that the government has a responsibility to keep the core infrastructure running, but there is no need to hand out free telephones to everyone who asks. That is not to say that the government does not have a vested interest in keeping communications cheap as it allows political information to be more easily disseminated and keeps the country in good economic standing. In terms of neutrality and corporate exploit, it is important to acknowledge the impermanence of corporations and their relative lack of say in the matter. If something is truly important, alternate service will become available or the existing corporations will be forced to change their ways. So, in general, the government should try to make it easier to communicate, but it is not absolutely necessary in the short term.

3/10/2014
Sidney, MT
Tresha
Sidney High School
The issue this article covers is the issue of Net Neutrality. Companies like Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, and Google are a huge part of our lives. We depend on them to communicate, shop, organize and find information. These companies will suffer along with comsumers without Net Neutrality. Unless the FCC reclassifies broadband as a telecommunications service — which it obviously is — all of these companies will have to pay up or get shut out. The internet delivers our emails, our news, our entertainment. It keeps us connected to friends and family and allows us to look up pretty much anything. A world without Net Neutrality means the messages we send to our families and friends might not get through. The videos we want to watch might not load. The apps we want to use might not function. The Internet I love could be destroyed. From my research, it seems like most of these companies' CEOs have shown their support for the open Internet. But they haven'ts said much. The FCC is just trying to bleed the American's wallets dry and it's getting ridiculous.

3/10/2014
Sidney/MT
Megan Johnson
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue pertaining to the article is if the FCC has the right to charge internet organizations for faster internet speed. As the article states, the courts rule that FCC does not have to right to do so. As many other bloggers have said, if the company is a non profit company, then they shouldn't have to pay for internet use. I agree with that thought because they should get the same speed of internet as a company like Netflix. The internet is a place to get your word out or to expand your business. By charging companies for internet use, the overall costs would fall on the shoulders of the consumers. The pool of consumers would ultimately decrease if there is a charge for internet.

3/10/2014
Sidney/MT
Tori Hill
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue here is who should pay for internet use and if the government can tell ISPs that the internet has to be equally accessible. The internet should be equally accessible to everyone--it is and always has been free. As the article said, the FCC said that Verizon and Comcast didn't have the right to restrict access to any legal website or online content. It is also mentioned in the article that companies would have to pay ISPs which means that bigger companies with more money are going to dominate the internet. Eventually YouTube might have to charge its customers. I do not agree with the ISPs. This is coming from a student who uses the internet for a plethora of scholastic resources! Everyone will be hurt if the internet costs money--doctors, teachers, students, business associates. EVERYONE. Perhaps all for-profit organizations should pay for internet services, because they are making money from the internet service, which in turn would cause their consumers to pay more because they're paying for the service as well. But for non-for-profit organizations, they should not have to pay, and neither should the people who use them.

3/10/2014
Sidney, MT
Lexie Brunsvold
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issues of this article is whether or not internet should be accessible to everyone no matter subject or size. I agree with Lacie, the internet is something that has always been accessible for everyone and should continue to be. That is why people use it. I do not think the government should be able to say who is to pay more or not. I really think many business would just stop because if they have to charge higher, such as Netflix, then people are not going to want to use it. This is because currently, Netflix is really cheap and easy to pay for, but if it was not cheap not many people would spend time on it I believe. People who want a faster internet already have to pay more than others. So I don't think people should have to pay more depending on the website's size or subject. The article says, "allowing only ones with money to dominate the Web." I am against this on all levels. The internet is used for everything, people find jobs and do homework on. It needs to accessible for everyone.

3/10/2014
Sidney, MT
Nicole Moore
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
This article touches on the topic of whether the FCC should be able to limit internet accessibility and whether this action is Constitutional. It brings to attention whether or not people should be restricted on bandwidth usage and accessing certain websites. This bring about the First Amendment which focuses on freedom of speech and whether the government can constrict where people are going. I don't feel the government can regulate the internet because not allowing people to go on certain websites restricts speech. In addition ISPs said 'because they provide a service, they should be allowed to decide how to deliver it and how much to charge', I agree because they are private corporations this a legit reason to be able to decide. It is important to note that the government has compelling interest because much of their business and communications are carried out online, and it could be an issue when trying to send important information online. However I do not believe the government concern outweighs the right of free speech for others.

3/7/2014
Sidney/MT
Juan Aguilar
Faulhaber/Sidney
The governmental issue about who should pay for the internet is whether or not the government has the right to tell ISPs that no matter the subject or the size of the content the internet should be equally accessible to everyone. I believe the government can not tell companies that they can't charge more for high bandwith. In the article it agrees with me because in the first paragraph is says, "the court said the FCC didn't have the right to enforce the rules." As Nick and the article says it will cost people more money but if it is costing a company more to provide you a service they should be able to charge you more for it. Also when the article says smaller websites will be stuck in the slow lane I don't believe because smaller websites will use less bandwidth so they will not have to pay for as much bandwidth as a company like Youtube to have the same speed.

3/4/2014
Irving/Texas
Nick M
Bradley/Nimitz
When asked “who should pay for the internet,” I would have to say i'm not really sure, but I do know who shouldn’t pay for the internet. The people.With ISP’s trying to unload the cost on us would just cause more Americans to get rid of internet. However, we are in the 21st century where internet access is almost a human right, everything we seem to do includes the internet. From job offers, work projects, to school homework. So when ISP’s look towards us to pay more for internet it will only cause more people to fall into the hole of not internet access and in turn go below the poverty line.

3/2/2014
Irving/Texas
Rajith I.
Bradley/Nimitz
If a internet service provider puts up the capital to connect individuals to other parts of the internet, then they should have the right to package and control their products like any other company. If the idea that the government has the right to enforce net neutrality because the government helped subsidize these ISP networks to consumers, then the same reasoning should be applied to governmentally funded industries like agriculture, auto, and finance. The internet has created a culture where all users are on equal footing. If ISPs try to create a hierarchical internet this will dissuade users from buying from those ISPs. While the government shouldn't interfere in the idea of net neutrality, it just makes good business sense to abide by net neutrality. An ISP will not do anything that will make it lose customers. In the case that ISPs stray from net neutrality it is the customer who will pay, either with passed down costs from websites or direct costs.

2/28/2014
Irving/Texas
Lacie
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet is something that is, always has been, and always should be accessible and open to everyone in the public. There are sites who make their money by charging for usage, but if those sites have to pay for their content to be prioritized, then they would essentially have to charge even more for people to use it. This makes it unfair to site owners and viewers, because they are both having to spend more money, basically all going to the ISPs. All of this is pretty much just saying that companies will have to pay the ISPs for every little thing. The profitable sites will have the money to pay, but then they are making less profit. The non profit websites shouldn't be required to pay simply because they do not make money off the site. If non profit sites did have to pay, they would also have to start charging, and then more and more money will be going to the ISPs. I believe internet should be free.

2/28/2014
Irving/Texas
William Kyle
Bradley/Nimitz
One of the biggest benefits of the internet is that it is completely open to anybody to use, whether creating a site or using one. Some sites charge to be used but that’s how they make money. I can see them paying for more priority. But if they have to pay their going to charge more to consumers, so every bit of the money that goes to the ISPs from the companies will actually be paid for indirectly by the consumers. So if that’s the case the ISPs should just charge the consumer more. Also, this pay to play will create monopolies. Companies such as YouTube have much more money to spend for this priority than other video streaming sites such as DailyMotion.com, giving YouTube a larger margin of viewers because the other sites cannot keep up in the pay to play race.

2/28/2014
Irving/TX
Evila
Bradley/Nimitz
Over the years the internet has grown exponentially and not only changed our society but has brought us closer to those that lie across the globe thus changing the way we perceive the world. The internet is a place of research, games,videos, and even comradeship. As a result the internet has become central to many lives. Because of how much we depend on the internet, the internet should be equally accessible to everyone. The internet is not a free enterprise, because it has in many respects become essential. As to who should pay, well the answer is not so simple. The costs should be paid for in a manner in that everyone benefits. The internet, however, should not become one more place where the voice of poor is ignored. The internet is a place that cuts across all boundaries, social,racial, economic, and it should stay that way for the future generations.

2/28/2014
Irving/Texas
Shiva Tanwer
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet should be equally distributed to everyone. I believe all the organizations should pay for their own services, they're only doing this out of greed. They make more than enough money and are doing this to further line their pockets with money.

2/28/2014
Irving/Texas
Monica F.
Bradley/Nimitz
Internet is a major part of, not only the world's communication, but of life. Nowadays, in order to do assignments, a student has to have the internet. In order to write an essay or a proposal for a job, you have to download some sort of program that allows documents to be written. And in other countries (Australia is one of them), internet is free, because it is seen as a "need." So yes, I believe that the internet should be equally accessible to everyone, because everyone needs it, in some way or the other. I'm all for paying to be a part of a certain website, like Netflix or Hulu, but I don't think that people should have to pay more than what they are now. And websites like YouTube shouldn't charge it's users, because it's always been advertised as "free," and the idea of making someone pay to listen to music that is legally uploaded for an individual's free use seems rather illogical. However, I do understand that a person should pay for certain things on the website - like a 3.99 movie - but they already do that. Why should we pay for something that someone else created, anyway? I don't believe that it's a free enterprise issue, and I believe that it should remain as it is.

2/28/2014
Irving/Texas
Michael Egeonu
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes, internet should be distributed equally to everyone all over the world! I believe all profit organizations should pay internet services, because they are making money. But for the non profit organizations, I believe they should have to pay anything because they are not making no commission at all!Like I said before I believe only profit organizations should pay for internet services and of course people using the internet should pay for internet also because they getting all of the benefits of the internet.

2/27/2014
Irving/Texas
Pam
Bradley/Nimitz
A lot of the issues with company's regulating internet sites is the fact that the buyers are paying for everything.People should be able to access everything they want because that's what they pay for company's should not have a say in what you can or can not view. And everyone should be able to access the internet we live in a society where everything is learned from the inter webs.

2/27/2014
Irving/tx
Pablo Martinez
Bradley/Nimitz
If the ISPs start charging higher cost to websites like YouTube, it will cause a domino effect. Daily Millions of users use YouTube and see the advertisements of all types of Companies. Those companies use the internet to attract more customers. If YouTube has to pay more they will require their users to pay a fee, eventually the number of users will decrease causing all the companies to stop investing money on uploading their advertisements on YouTube. YouTube makes money on ads, no ads=no money so how will YouTube pay more if they're not making enough? The Internet should be equally accessible to everyone because people depend on it. I also believe websites like YouTube shouldn't have to pay more and they also shouldn't charge the users' simply because they both depend on each other.

2/27/2014
Irving/TX
Sarah V
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet is able to provide a variety of services to people across the globe. Because of this, the internet should be equally accessible to everyone. Internet service providers believe that access to the internet is a free enterprise issue that can have price discriminates on it, which could keep certain sites from being as accessible to its consumers. Those who use the Internet and the sites hosting content should both share the burden of paying for the internet, but there should not be an added cost to access websites quicker. The internet should remain as an entity that is approachable to all who have access to it.

2/26/2014
Irving/TX
Eva
Bradley/Nimitz
The Internet is in daily use in our life's and around the world. It allows for quick access to information and provides us with knowledge, entertainment and connection with our world. The internet should be equally accessible to everyone. We already pay for having internet in our homes, and if it got to expensive the copious amount of people with internet would decrease. However getting what you pay for sounds fair, if you pay more to get faster internet then you should get faster internet.

2/26/2014
Irving/Texas
Caroline
Bradley/Nimitz
All men are created equal and all men are equally accessible to Internet. Internet has become a necessity to people to the point that they depend on it more than food. If I asked a person which item they will do without either food or the internet and I have had many answer that they would survive without food because they would order some on the internet. Has the internet created us dumber or are we depending too much on it to think.Anyways people would pay ridiculous amounts of money to be able to feed their addiction, in this case the internet. Who should pay for the content, would really be the site hosting the content since they should give you the whole package rather than just half way. When you ask for a drink the employee should also provide you with the container , it applies the same way with the internet.

2/24/2014
Irving/Tx
Ty'Mira
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz
Yes the internet should be accessible to everyone. Being a free-enterprise issue is a 50/50 thing and has its pros and cons, but I do agree with the internet service providers. Yes people who use the internet should pay because nothing is free. Also the providers get some type of profit from the consumers pay.

2/24/2014
Irving/TX
Anh
Bradley/Nimitz
In our life, the internet is one of the most free places we can enjoy ourselves upon. We can state our opinion, mean or nicely, search upon thousands of websites, and watch cute videos on the inter web. But if the IPCs make the sites like YouTube or Daily Motion (another video sharing site) pay more because of the bandwidth, the people who share their interest will also be taking a beat down on what they wish to post. The question at hand is who is paying for the internet, well I believe those who are paying for the provider is paying for the internet in some domino effect way. We, the people who are using the internet, pay for the inter web to provide such entertainments for us to enjoy. Although it may seem unfair to make internet providers to allow more bandwidth for the sites who need it more, we are paying to watch and use those sites for what they provide for us. It they make sites like YouTube or Netflix pay for more, YouTube would no longer be free for the people to watch and Netflix would just be even more expensive than before. The internet should be accessible for anyone and everyone to use, it’s one of the most global and unionizing form of communications we use. Is this a “free enterprise” concern? Of course it’s not! It’s more of the freedom of the companies using high bandwidth and the unfairness of it for those who are using the internet to share it with the rest of the world. If anyone has to pay, it would be us since we are using these sites as a form of entertainment, informing, and to just use whenever we please. We shouldn't make the companies who are providing us with these services to pay for more just because the IPCs want more money. We should take into account that the only reason they are using more bandwidth is because of us.

2/23/2014
Irving/TX
Berenizes
Bradley/Nimitz
According to federal law, the internet isn’t a need like electricity or water. However, in today’s society internet is an essential need, and without it, it’s very hard to do even the simplest things. I believe internet should be a free service to everyone and we should only have to pay for sites we actually use. We all use the internet therefore we all should pay our share. However, I do believe if a consumer wants faster or better internet then they should pay for it. Basically, you get what you pay for.

2/23/2014
Irving/Texas
Kelsea Murcek
Bradley/Nimitz HS
The internet should be a free and open to venture with it’s limitless qualities and characteristics to anyone who wishes to use it. A service, such as Hulu or YouTube, should not have to pay internet service providers, who are already making a ton of money from their customers, in order to carry out their normal functions. The issue of paying for high bandwidth is just a way for internet service providers to make all the money and control the web at the same time.The biggest concern here is that the costs put upon websites will be thrust upon consumers as well to keep the service going. If this appeal is to go into effect, there’s no stopping websites from passing down the costs. Internet is already pretty pricey and could get even more pricey. I wouldn’t want anything to come down on me as a consumer and if the internet service providers demand a payment for the running of certain sites, those sites should have to figure out a way around the cost or outright pay it if they don’t want to lose customers.

2/22/2014
Irving/ Texas
Vanessa Dania
Bradley/ NImitz
Having internet is not essential. Sure in today’s modern day world, we depend on technology and the internet but that does not mean that everyone should get free internet. People, as much as we like to think, do not need the internet to survive. It is not like food and water that are a vital of our existence. Saying that everyone should have free internet is like saying everyone should have free water and food. The water that we pay and need is not available to everyone as it should be. Water is part of nature, but that is own by businesses that have our water supply. When it comes down to it, unlike the United States, various countries overprice their water because of their shortage. So what I am trying to say is that the internet business is a Free enterprise. If this law is passed, many will come crumbling down. As always, big businesses will thrive over it and the small ones will suffer. People, or most, work for their wants. People who want to have internet should pay for it, because they are paying for their water but the sites should also pay some sort of percentage from their profits.

2/22/2014
Irving/TX
Sarah L
Bradley/Nimitz High School
The internet should be accessible to everyone due to the face so much happens on the internet in this day and age. 10 years ago, it was easy to stay in tune with current events with news channels, newspapers, etc: however, now the internet is used for many more day-to-day activities such as email, online banking, online shopping, international communication, etc. The common phrase, “you get what you pay for” really echoes in my head here. Cable is not freely accessible for everyone either, consumers must work their way to the “fun” channels, but even without cable, consumers are able to watch the basic news stations (the “essentials”). I believe the internet should be just like this… consumers are able to access the “essentials,” but must work their way to the “fun” websites that require more bandwidth. The people who want to access these higher bandwidth sites are going to have to pay either way; if consumers pay then they get what they want, but if the site hosts pay, the added costs will turn right back to the consumers, guaranteed.

2/21/2014
Irving/Texas
Erin D
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet is a rave trend, everyone nowadays uses it, I’m using the internet right now to view this forum. Now, if this website wasn’t free for me to browse (and if it wasn’t a homework assignment) I would, without regret, leave the site. I believe charging consumers for viewing websites would be a step in the wrong direction. Websites make money by how many people view the site, charging additional fees (on top of the ones already in place for certain websites) would drive viewers away, hence hosts would lose money. Now, if ISP wants to charge more money for faster bandwidth, well then hosts have a choice: load slow (lose viewers) or pay more (keep/gain viewers). Because this is a business decision, I feel it should be a business’ bill.

2/21/2014
Irving/Texas
Yesenia
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet should be equaly accessible to everyone. I believe that if a company wants to pay more to be more accessible to the people they should be allowed to do that but it would be unfair to smaller companies who don't make as much to promote their smaller business. Not only would it be unfair to smaller companies but it would also be annoying to not be able to access all websites at the same speed. Companies should be the ones to pay to host content. Companies are the ones who gain money by promoting their products and information should be free.

2/21/2014
Irving/Tx
Ruth
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet should be accessible to everyone it plays a huge role in everyday life,not only for entertainment purposes but as well for school and studying. In regard to the free enterprise issue it would not be fair to minor companies to pay what dominant companies pay.As to who gets to pay for what I believe that the consumer should pay for the information he/she may be seeking,the website should not have to pay for providing the information. In conclusion the internet should be accessible to everyone,but you should only pay for what you use.

2/21/2014
Irving/Texas
Yesenia
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet should be equaly accessible to everyone.

2/21/2014
Irving/TX
Vivian
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the Internet should be equally accessible to everyone. However, I think that with certain services that provide higher bandwidths to their sites should charge more for viewing access. Many companies usually pay for everything they want viewers to see. If other companies feel that it would only be fair give higher definition quality to people that would pay for it they should. There is an issue with the ISP that needs to be resolved.

2/21/2014
Irving/Texas
Adam
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet is a great thing, it should be available to everyone. I believe it is a free enterprise issue because we should have the right to browse whatever we want. We know what is right and what is wrong. The sites hosting the content should be the ones that pay. Why would we want to pay? If I was to click on a link that has info on maybe, Neuroscience, and it tells me to pay a fee, then I would go and find another source to look at. Those sites won’t get money because thats what people will do. But I’ll say this, people will get what they paid for. We expect to get great things through ISP with the money we invest in for the internet.

2/21/2014
Irving/TX
Stefan
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes, the internet should be a free and unhindered place. If internet providers are simply allowed to do whatever they please and charge whatever they want on the internet then it will be the "freedom" of the internet that is at stake not the "free enterprise" of the internet service providers. The ISPs would be to the internet as the US Government is to the United States; they would hold too much power. In essence, the case brought by Verizon is simply a power play on their part. Any ISP could choose to raise rates unfairly against a site that has been negative to them or simply clog their loading times so horribly that no one comes to their site. Furthermore, it should be the sites hosting content that pay for it because, once again, the internet is free not pay-to-play. Using the inconsistency of technology to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not acceptable in any fashion.

2/21/2014
Irving/Texas
Jessi
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet should be equally accessible to everyone, without a doubt, because it has become so essential to function in society. Like a electricity, water, and other utilities, internet access, is typically, and should be, guaranteed, but everyday utilities have a price. Regarding who has to pay the fees, there should be a fair balance and circulation of fees between customers, servers, websites and sponsors. That’s basic capitalism and free enterprise. Net neutrality is a touchy subject to debate, especially regarding decisions based on additional charges and taxes to servers that could result in additional charges to customers. It could widen the gap between classes. Currently, the internet is accessible to everyone across all borders of diversity, from personal orientation to financial circumstance. But if only the elite can pay for access, only the elite can fully understand the potential of the resource. Obviously the courts aren’t deciding to weaken the poor and strengthen the rich, but the full outcomes and effects of the decisions made in the courtroom must be understood before actually making said decisions. Should any policies be created in this process, the court and the corporate companies need to realize the effects on communities not as an unaffected group in a series of reactions, but as a people directly affected. Let it be understood, though, that no matter how the court rules or how the companies, servers and websites react, the ever-loved and adored hackers and programmers of the world will find their way around any additional fees that arise. Many feel entitled to internet access, as they should, so, the people will react, like this event is the second prohibition, and find a way to exercise their natural right to access what they want, when they want it. Restrictions on internet access will only be an annoying road block for users, causing unnecessary traffic, agitation and complaints.

2/21/2014
Irving/ TX
Kayla
Helen Bradley/Nimitz High School
Yes, the internet should be equally accessible to everyone because the internet plays a big part of everyone's day to day activities; like paying bills, researching information, and playing games. Yes, I agree that it is a free enterprise issue. If websites wanted high bandwidth they would have to pay more and if they didn't have the money to pay, only the big and powerful websites would be on the internet turning this into a monopoly. The smaller websites wouldn't be able to succeed and we would be stuck with same websites all the time. The sites hosting content should be the ones to pay. We as customers would pay for our monthly internet plan but the sites would pay for the rest.

2/21/2014
Irving/TX
Carmen
Bradley/Nimitz High School
Yes, Internet should be accessible to everyone, everybody needs the internet in one way or another whether its school work, entertainment, research it does not matter. I don't agree with the free enterprise issue. I believe that the people using the internet should be the ones entitled to pay for it, since we are the ones using for whatever the needs may be. But isn't fair for the sites that provide us with the entertainment, or information to have to pay for their services, that we need.

2/21/2014
Irving/TX
Isabel
Bradley/Nimitz
So once again, people with money take the advantage in the game of life in America. Not only can they get a FlashPass at Six Flags to get on the rides sooner, but now they can also get faster internet! Is that really a surprise? If the IPS follows through with their proposition of charging providers for viewing websites like YouTube and Netflix it would create yet another disparity between the lower and upper classes. Though "money talks," charging to view popular sites should never be acceptable. The internet should be equally accessible since in the technology driven world we live in today, it would be nearly impossible to live without internet access. The more we depend on it, the more we think we need it, the more we think we need it, the more we use it, and the more we use it companies are thinking of ways to gain more money from the great usage of the internet.

2/20/2014
Irving/TX
Janet
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the Internet should be equally accessible to everyone that pays for it. It is a free enterprise issue because we should all have the right to browse as we please without any restrictions or extra charges. However, if a website is fee-based for whatever the reason may be, Internet owners then have the choice to pay if they so desire. Since we pay for Internet access, we should have the power to decide what sites to pay for.

2/20/2014
Irving/Texas
Milton
Bradley/Nimitz
The internet should be equally accessible to everyone because it is needed for a lot of things, like paying online, and researching a topic. And I agree with the Internet service providers that it is a free enterprise issue because anyone has a right to view whatever they want with out any restrictions unless it is being view in school, or in the workforce. I believe that the people using the Internet should pay for the Internet that is being used. The sites hosting the information should not pay because they are providing us with information that we want free of cost.

2/18/2014
great neck NY
Aviva Sham
Ms.Davidson great neck north high school
I believe the internet should be accessible to everyone depending on where they are. In other words in schools students should not be free to search anything due to having a safe school environment. At home it's up to the parents if they want to filter their home computer.

2/14/2014
Irving,TX
Josh A
Braley/Nimitz
The internet should be available to everyone. If you want fast browsing, then you should pay for it. Plain and simple. However, it is unfair for costumers to pay for their internet service , pay for the extra services provided by hosting sites such as Amazon Prime and Netflix, and then pay more for high bandwidth. Such services run up to $79 for their membership. In terms with the free enterprise issue, it would be unfair for small companies to pay as much as what the major providers pay. There would be no way that these small companies could pay that much money for high bandwidth. Many of these small companies run on donations from loyal costumers.

2/14/2014
St David/AZ
John
Mr Sorenson/Benson High School
The internet should be equally accessibly to everyone because we need it to research and stuff like that! It is a free enterprise issue because one company shouldn't get in the way of another putting info on the internet, because they don't control who sees what. Well, yeah, people using the internet should pay cuz like dial-up somebody's providing it and that's why people need to pay. The sites hosting are mostly non-profit but commericially, sites hosting content if they want money back for the service need to pay to maintain the website.

2/13/2014
Sidney/ Montana
Tristan Potts
Mr. Falhaber / Sidney High School
I believe the people who use the websites should have to pay for using their service. This way i believe creates more jobs for people to have. If the hosting of the site has to pay im sure it would cause alot of them to quit.

Related News
Related Resources
This Speak Out does not have any related resources
Share