The battle between big companies with money and the consumer is becoming increasingly more prominent in the debate for and against net neutrality. According to the New York Times, net neutrality is the holding that Internet service providers treat all sources of Internet data equally, regardless of the size of the entity providing the date.
According to the New York Times, the current system allows all users to access all sites regardless of the nature of the site or how dynamic the site is.
If net neutrality is done away with, everyone will feel the financial effects. Companies would have to pay higher rates for more dynamic sites and in turn, the consumers would have to pay more to access these sites. The only people who would benefit from doing away with net neutrality would be the big businesses who can easily afford to pay the premiums to have a top tier site. Because many small businesses could not afford to pay high prices to have their site in the top tier of the new Internet system, the companies would suffer because consumers would not be as interested in the site because it would not be as interactive or appealing as the other premium sites.
Not only would the companies suffer, but consumers who could not afford such high prices for Internet would suffer as well. Because the Internet is net neutral right now, all consumers have availability to news sites and other valuable informational sites. Many people use the Internet as their main newsgathering site, and if the Internet becomes more expensive, these people would suffer and no longer be able to do their duty to be informed citizens.
Net neutrality should be fought for and people need to fight to protect the rights of consumers and small business. The only people who would benefit in making the Internet a tiered system would be the big businessmen who want to drive out their competition.