Net Neutrality

It came as no surprise when the Federal Communications Commission, a governmental agency, declared intentions to establish jurisdiction over the free flow of internet data on September 21. After all, the internet has been a hotbed for controversy for years—and with global internet trafficking on an exponential rise, telecoms companies have a lot on their hands to handle alone. Possibly most importantly, however, the question of net neutrality comes prominently to mind with regards to this issue: should the flow of internet traffic be equal to all? Or should the potentiality of internet innovations overpower growing concerns in an increasingly digital age? The answer is far from clear—but the ramifications are looming and concrete on every scale.

On the most basic level of this controversy, the FCC has put forth what the Economist calls “a controversial plan for keeping digital arteries open to all.” Network monopolies, given increasing concerns in bandwidth, could possibly create a tiered system in which companies willing to pay more would be able to transfer data packets with greater speed and ease. In that way, innovation is cited as one of the key arguments of telecoms companies against net neutrality; some believe that to foster the growth of high-paying companies would create necessary innovation and competition in the broadband access market. On the other hand, the FCC’s guidelines on internet traffic management have seen a transformation from informal to legal in order to protect the rights of equal net access to all.

The controversy in this issue is apparent, and especially in our local sphere. A violation of net neutrality would influence the heavily internet-centric nature of the typical Arcadian student. But the viewpoints of students are diverse: “I don’t know what was wrong with the informal guidelines which the FCC set forth, and why they had to make them official,” remarked junior Ray Chao, citing the fact that the government had no business meddling in affairs in which it was not involved. “I disagree with Ray,” contended sophomore Greg Chang, offering an opposing viewpoint “in that it’s a governmental duty to protect net neutrality: a pressing issue for all of us.”

Perhaps, given the arguments on both sides, the justice in the FCC’s new policy is unclear. But one thing is for certain: that net neutrality effects all of us equally, and that it’s no issue to be ignored in coming months.

It came as no surprise when the Federal Communications Commission, a governmental agency, declared [its] intentions to establish [of establishing] jurisdiction over the free flow of internet [capitalize 'internet'] data on September 21. After all, the internet [capitalize] has been a hotbed for controversy for years—and with global internet [capitalize] trafficking on an exponential rise, telecoms companies have a lot [to handle] on their hands to handle alone. Possibly most importantly, however, the question of net neutrality comes prominently to mind with regards to this issue: should the flow of internet [capitalize] traffic be equal to all? Or should the potentiality of internet [capitalize] innovations overpower growing concerns in an increasingly digital age? The answer is far from clear—but the ramifications are looming and concrete on every scale.

On the most basic level of this controversy [the word controversy is in the quote later, so it would sound better if you use another word here], the FCC has put forth what the Economist calls “a controversial plan for keeping digital arteries open to all.” Network monopolies, given increasing concerns in bandwidth, could possibly create a tiered system in which companies willing to pay more would be able to transfer data packets with greater speed and ease. In that way, innovation is cited as one of the key arguments of telecoms companies against net neutrality; some believe that to foster the growth of high-paying companies would create necessary innovation and competition in the broadband access market. On the other hand, the FCC’s guidelines on internet [capitalize] traffic management have seen a transformation from informal to legal in order to protect the rights of equal net access to all.

The controversy in this issue is apparent, and especially in our local sphere. A violation of net neutrality would influence the heavily internet [capitalize] -centric nature of the typical Arcadian student. But the viewpoints of students are diverse: “I don’t know what was wrong with the informal guidelines which the FCC set forth, and why they had to make them official,” remarked junior Ray Chao, citing the fact that the government had no business meddling in affairs in which it was not involved. “I disagree with Ray,” contended sophomore Greg Chang, offering an opposing viewpoint “in that it’s a governmental duty to protect net neutrality: a pressing issue for all of us.”

Perhaps, given the arguments on both sides, the justice in the FCC’s new policy is unclear. But one thing is for certain: that net neutrality effects all of us equally, and that it’s no issue to be ignored in coming months.. [delete the second period]

It came as no surprise when the Federal Communications Commission, a governmental agency, declared its intentions of establishing jurisdiction over the free flow of Internet data on September 21. After all, the Internet has been a hotbed for controversy for years—and with global Internet trafficking on an exponential rise, telecoms companies have a lot to handle on their hands alone.

Possibly most importantly, however, the question of net neutrality comes prominently to mind with regards to this issue: should the flow of Internet capitalize traffic be equal to all? Or should the potential of Internet innovations overpower growing concerns in an increasingly digital age? The answer is far from clear—but the ramifications are looming and concrete on every scale.

On the most basic level of this affair, the FCC has put forth what the Economist calls “a controversial plan for keeping digital arteries open to all.” Network monopolies, given increasing concerns in bandwidth, could possibly create a tiered system in which companies willing to pay more would be able to transfer data packets with greater speed and ease. In that way, innovation is cited as one of the key arguments of telecoms companies against net neutrality; some believe that to foster the growth of high-paying companies would create necessary innovation and competition in the broadband access market. On the other hand, the FCC’s guidelines on Internet traffic management have seen a transformation from informal to legal in order to protect the rights of equal net access to all.

The controversy in this issue is apparent, and especially in our local sphere. A violation of net neutrality would influence the heavily Internet-centric nature of the typical Arcadian student. But the viewpoints of students are diverse: “I don’t know what was wrong with the informal guidelines which the FCC set forth, and why they had to make them official,” remarked junior Ray Chao, citing the fact that the government had no business meddling in affairs in which it was not involved. “I disagree with Ray,” contended sophomore Greg Chang, offering an opposing viewpoint “in that it’s a governmental duty to protect net neutrality: a pressing issue for all of us.”

Perhaps, given the arguments on both sides, the justice in the FCC’s new policy is unclear. But one thing is for certain: that net neutrality affects all of us equally, and that it’s no issue to be ignored in coming months.