Also, if the U.N. were to take charge, the cost to deliver their services globally would be far too costly for website like google. Since many Countries have their own agendas and policies implemented, there is no need for the U.N. to regulate the Internet. Since Internet monitoring is a controversial issue on a political and societal scale, it has both negatives and positives that benefit both the government and people. Although some may oppose Internet monitoring, it is necessary in some circumstances. It can help prevent and detect cybercrime, unauthorized access to sensitive data, and terrorism.
Those in favor of net neutrality believe that websites that providing content and the users who search for it are equal; therefore no one should be given preferential treatment at the cost of others. “The net neutrality debate is one of several sites of struggles to adapt and redefine rights and obligations of stakeholders in the Internet-centric communications system. Its outcomes will shape the future of the Internet and influence the level and distribution of its benefits.” (Bauer, Johannes M.). There are many pros and cons to this issue but the possibility of regulations created to monitor the neutrality of the Internet will ultimately be a good thing. Net neutrality is crucial in allowing Internet users to receive the content that he or she desires and not get censored by their Internet service provider.
When it comes to the topic of net neutrality, most scholars agree that it is harmful to the advancement of the internet. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of the extent of the ISP’s power to regulate the internet. Whereas some scholars are convinced that net neutrality is paramount to the internet’s growth, others maintain that the internet service providers have a right to regulate the very service they provide. This paper explores reasons for maintaining net neutrality and the power ISP’s should have while also asserting that net neutrality is essential for users to spread unhampered information without interference. Net neutrality is publicly accessible information and transfer of that information.
Scott Cleland from Net Competition said that net neutrality legislations “mean less privacy for all Americans, as Net neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic” (qtd. from “Net Neutrality”). But what is he talking about anyway? Net neutrality, or the separation between internet service providers (ISP’s) and the content being retrieved through their networks, is an extremely hot topic nowadays. The ideals of net neutrality can be compared to the way you would use electricity in your home.
Supports of the tax free Internet say that because of the way transactions are carried out on the web, electronic sales are vulnerabl... ... middle of paper ... ...o adopt a unified sales tax for Internet purchases. They are a liberal group for Internet taxation, which recently got shot down with the onset of the extended Internet Tax Freedom Act. The coalition is not currently trying to persuade e-tailers to join their position on Internet taxation. Big names such as Amazon.com have not joined the talks for good reason. Online retailers do not want states to adopt a plan to implement taxes online since it would threaten the tax-free shopping advantage that these online retailers enjoy.
Vinton Cerf stated, “The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive” (Vinton Cerf). Moreover, consumers would be protected under a monopolistic market due to network neutrality (Opposing Views). The Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com state that in a perfect world there would be a variable amount of high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers plenty of choices. This would provide a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open concept.
The money you spend on attorneys and accountants could save you much more. Never turn over control to the buyer until you have signed contracts and the money in your account. You will need to use an escrow service to hold the website along with the buyer’s money while the transaction is in process. Don’t attempt to sell multiple copies of the same website under different domain names. You will find that all the money you earn will be spent on legal fees defending yourself from unhappy buyers.
We can all call ourselves travelers, capable... ... middle of paper ... ...e for slower internet speeds than any other country in the world. Since the FCC isn’t doing much to stop them, we should try taking action. Why should we accommodate to some of the worst broadband providers when we hold some of the greatest technological innovations in communication. The internet is a great tool we can’t afford to lose, just because a company feels like producing a bigger revenue. Comcast and AT&T might be great companies, they just need to slow down a bit and avoid creating a bigger conflict.
Since each state has its own unique laws and tax codes, it is practically impossible to compel every state to follow the same simplification tax rule. Besides, given the heated controversy and universal impact of the bill, the politicians will look for ways to slow down the enactment as similar trouble has happened to the universal Obama HealthCare. No matter if the bill is enacted or not, one thing is certain that nothing is going to deter people from shopping online (not even sales tax) because shopping online is just too cheap and convenient.
The reason the DMCA creates such controversy is that many people believe that the Act puts all of the control into the creator’s hands, which, in truth, is not a balance at all. However, one cannot blame this lack of balance entirely on artists because the reality is that most artists do not own the right to their work, but the company with which they signed their contract owns the rights. The question remains as to how to word the DMCA in a way that will not only promote the rise of Internet business, but will protect people’s fundamental rights. The Act, as is, will not suffice, rather changes must be made before society allows their rights to be controlled by the big-money corporations that own most copyrights to influence the government with their money. If society remains ignorant about the provisions of this law, then not only are we allowing the very people who profit from the Internet to restrict who views it, but we are sitting idly by as the government strips us of our rights.