The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently considering whether Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon should be able to cut deals with online services like Netflix, Amazon and YouTube to move their content faster than other services.

These talks, which have been refreshed since April of this year when the FCC proposed new rules that would allow broadband Internet providers to give companies willing to pay a higher price faster connection speeds, have garnered record-setting public attention.

Tom Wheeler, a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries and chairman of the FCC, was the one to propose the change in telecommunications policy.

According to ABC News, Wheeler said financial arrangements between broadband providers and content sites would work well, so long as all agreements were commercially reasonable.

Some disagree, like MHS’s own Pam Freiberg, business teacher.

“I think it’ll end up costing us more as consumers,” Freiberg said. “And from that standpoint, I’m not really in favor of it. I think because of the way the internet’s turned out in this country, we’re used to what it’s like now. It’ll be a really hard adjustment for everyone.”

Companies could potentially up their rates for consumers in order to pay provider companies for faster service.

Freiberg said new restrictions could affect small businesses negatively.

“You’ll have some companies who have faster streaming,” Freiberg said. “If you’re a smaller company or have a start-up business, it’d be really hard for you to compete with Netflix, Amazon or those other companies that stream content right now because they have the dollars to pay for those faster services.”

The wealthier companies, like Google and YouTube, would have a real edge on smaller companies, Freiberg said.

“We’d end up with a monopoly because, of course, people want their content fast,” Freiberg said. “We’re all impatient with the internet.”

Cathy Chirco, math teacher, agrees with Freiberg.

“Currently, the general public has an appropriate level of access to the internet,” Chirco said. “I don’t believe there is an immediate need for government regulation in this area.”

Chirco said regulations should only be put in place if there becomes an issue with accessibility to a reasonable level of Internet access for the general public.

“Technology, including Internet access, is continuing to be an important component of education,” Chirco said. “If public access to high-quality Internet service became more difficult for lower-income families, this could further the achievement gap for those who are working to improve their socioeconomic status, thereby worsening an already problematic situation in our country.”

Tucker Osman, senior, said he’s adamantly against new regulations.

“Because the Internet is an international entity, there should be no body governing it,” Osman said. “Giving preferential networking to those who pay more is against the whole point of the Internet.”

There are, however, upsides to the proposals.

Freiberg said she recognized there could be positive tradeoffs.

“We would get our movies and other streaming things faster,” Freiberg said. “For an impatient person, that’s nice, even if we do already get things pretty quickly.”

That could, though, make us depend on those companies with quicker streaming, Freiberg said.

“And so you’re going to have more problems with monopolies, as other companies wouldn’t be able to compete,” Freiberg said. “So probably, we will enjoy the part of this that’s fast, but we have to decide if it’s really the best thing for the economy as a whole.”