Who owns the ocean? Who owns the river? Who owns the mountains?
Most of all the roads in the United States are public. They are
public because all of us use them for business. In other words, those
roads are public property. The state is the owner of the roads. We
collectively manage the public property. If the roads are privately
owned, we won't be able to commute; we'd have to ask the local owner
of the roads for passing their roads. That would certainly would
limit our freedom -- if we do not set limits on the rights of the
owners of the roads.
So then, what if the access to the ocean is privatized? What if a rich someone owns and prohibits the access to the entire ocean? The public would not be able to reach the ocean. Then the owner of the roads will own the ocean even if it is only the access to the ocean that the owner controls. Who owns the ocean? Should the private beach owners can claim they own the entire ocean?
Much the same logic goes with the knowledge. Who owns the knowledge? Should universities claim that they own the piece of knowledge? Should they sell their expertise of the field by costing the students such a huge amount of money for their trying to access to the knowledge?
The ownership is even more harder to define in case with the copyrighted materials. Who owns the music that are on Youtube? Should Youtube charge the viewers for their own profit? Who owns the piece of news that are collected by Google? Should Google pay the news agencies for the information that they provide?
Here is yet another bigger problem. What if, the internet providers claim that they can charge the users for the 'contents' that are offered through their network? Can they charge the users for what they do not own just by offering the gateway? Should the provider control the access in such way that would work for them, or the state that has the vital interests in the way the voters access the information?
Net neutrality ensures the public access of the information which they do not own. Net neutrality ensures our freedom and legally prohibit the interference of the internet providers. The internet plays incresingly greater roles in elections. Let us hope our leaders will act in a way to ensure our freedom and democrasy.
So then, what if the access to the ocean is privatized? What if a rich someone owns and prohibits the access to the entire ocean? The public would not be able to reach the ocean. Then the owner of the roads will own the ocean even if it is only the access to the ocean that the owner controls. Who owns the ocean? Should the private beach owners can claim they own the entire ocean?
Much the same logic goes with the knowledge. Who owns the knowledge? Should universities claim that they own the piece of knowledge? Should they sell their expertise of the field by costing the students such a huge amount of money for their trying to access to the knowledge?
The ownership is even more harder to define in case with the copyrighted materials. Who owns the music that are on Youtube? Should Youtube charge the viewers for their own profit? Who owns the piece of news that are collected by Google? Should Google pay the news agencies for the information that they provide?
Here is yet another bigger problem. What if, the internet providers claim that they can charge the users for the 'contents' that are offered through their network? Can they charge the users for what they do not own just by offering the gateway? Should the provider control the access in such way that would work for them, or the state that has the vital interests in the way the voters access the information?
Net neutrality ensures the public access of the information which they do not own. Net neutrality ensures our freedom and legally prohibit the interference of the internet providers. The internet plays incresingly greater roles in elections. Let us hope our leaders will act in a way to ensure our freedom and democrasy.