Providing Internet access is just as important as other services, such as building roads, so governments should offer Internet access to all of their citizens at no cost.
-
September 16, 2020 at 1:04 pm
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Providing Internet access is just as important as other services, such as building roads, so governments should offer Internet access to all of their citizens at no cost. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
In a highly developed society like today, it is hard to imagine there are no Internet around us, which link us to the world and each other as a function of bridge. Nevertheless, should Internet be in charge comes to a controversial problem owing to its universality and significant effort to bolster the operation of the society. In my opinion, governments should not offer Internet access to all the citizen at no cost.
First, one imperative property of Internet serves as profitability. For one day, the internet can create billions of dollars in the world, which is an vital constitution of global economy. Specifically, the Internet providers are usually private companies or organizations, they exert Internet not only as a way to improve our life standard but also a merchandise that make lots of money. With profit as an incentive, the Internet can be continuously upgraded by these companies, give rise to advanced technology and society eventually. Rather than public services, such as roads, Internet that plays a bigger but not basic role is therefore can not be controlled by governments.
Equally important, non-public service system introduce competitiveness. It is plenty of Internet provider that engender a trend of better service. Take a simple example, by no means would a restaurant have tasty meal and proper price if only one restaurant in a community. Once being aware of there are not just one but other restaurant with good reputation, can they manage to promote themselves, this is more or less comes to the same thing with Internet. Had it not been for competitiveness, governments select one company and offer Internet access to people, the situation will beyond imagination, Internet speed at least.
Admittedly, there will be more citizens accessible to Internet if charging no fee. However, with the rapid development of science and technology, the cost of Internet decreased dramatically. A decade ago 3G Internet was difficult to afford, while 5G began to occupy people’s life today, and 3G already have very low price.
September 17, 2020 at 1:56 amScore: 47.2
Issues:
- About 65% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
- Lots of grammatical errors.
I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.
September 17, 2020 at 6:14 amIn a highly developed society, it is hard to imagine there is no Internet around, function as bridge to link us with each other and the world. Nevertheless, whether the Internet should charge has become a controversial topic owing to the universality and the supporting role of social operation. In my opinion, governments should not offer Internet access to all the citizen at no cost.
First, one imperative property of Internet serves as profitability. In just one day, the internet can create billions of benefits on a global scale, which is a vital constitution of the global economy. To be more specific, the Internet providers are usually private companies or organizations. For them, the Internet is not only a way to improve our living standard, but also a merchandise that make lots of money. With profit as an incentive, these companies will continue to upgrade their products, give rise to advanced technology and affect people’s life eventually. Rather than public services, such as roads, the Internet with greater potential and profitability is not the basis of social life, therefore should not be controlled by the government.
Equally important, non-public service system introduce competitiveness. It is plenty of Internet providers that engender a trend of better service. Take a simple example, if there is only one restaurant in a community, by no means would it have tasty meals and proper price. Once being aware of there is more than one restaurant with good reputation, they can strive to promote themselves, which is more or less the same as the Internet. Had it not been for experiencing competitiveness, the government selects a company to offer people with the Internet, the situation will be unimaginable, at least Internet speed .
Admittedly, there will be more citizens accessible to Internet if charging no fee. However, with the rapid development of science and technology, the cost of Internet has dropped sharply. Now people can easily surf the Internet without spending much money. A decade ago, 3G Internet was difficult to afford, while 5G began to occupy people’s life today, and 3G has already had a very low price.
A concise conclusion, through above illustration and examples, can be drawn that governments should not offer Internet access for free.
September 17, 2020 at 9:37 pmScore: 51
Issues:
- About 50% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
- Many sentences make no sense.
- Lengthy essay. Restrict it to 300 – 320 words if you can.
I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.
September 18, 2020 at 12:27 pmIn a highly developed society, it is hard to imagine there is no Internet around. Nevertheless, whether the Internet should charge has become a controversial topic owing to the universality and the supporting role of social operation. In my opinion, governments should not offer Internet access to all the citizen at no cost.
First, one imperative property of Internet serves as profitability. In just one day, the internet can create billions of benefits, which is a vital constitution of the global economy. To be more specific, the Internet providers are usually private companies. For them, the Internet is not only a technology to be improved, but also a merchandise to earn money. With profit as an incentive, these companies will continue to upgrade their products, and eventually affect people’s lives. Rather than public services, such as roads, the Internet has greater potential and profitability, therefore should not be controlled by the government.
Equally important, non-public service system introduce competitiveness. It is plenty of Internet providers that engender a trend of better service. For example, if only one restaurant in a community, by no means would it have tasty meals and proper price. Once being aware of competition, they can strive to promote themselves. This is more or less the same as the Internet. Without competition, the government appoints a company, the situation will be unimaginable, at least Internet speed .
Admittedly, there will be more citizens accessible to Internet if charging no fee. However, with the rapid development of science and technology, the cost of Internet has dropped sharply. Now people can easily surf the Internet without spending much money. For instance, a decade ago, 3G Internet was difficult to afford, while 5G began to occupy people’s life today, and 3G has already had a very low price.
A concise conclusion, through above illustration and examples, can be drawn that governments should not offer Internet access for free.
September 19, 2020 at 7:50 pmIn a highly developed society, it is hard to imagine there is no Internet around. Nevertheless, (whether the Internet should charge)[logical confusion ] has become a controversial topic owing to (the universality and the supporting role of social operation)[unclear ] . In my opinion, governments should not offer Internet access to all the[ article error ] citizen [word form error ] at no cost.
First, one imperative property of [ article error ] Internet (serves as profitability)[unclear ] . In just one day, the internet can create billions of benefits[ unclear ] , which is a vital constitution[wrong word ] of the global economy. To be more specific, the Internet providers are usually private companies. For them, the Internet is not only a technology to be improved, but also a merchandise to earn money. With profit as an incentive, these companies will continue to upgrade their products, and eventually affect people’s lives. Rather than public services, such as roads, the Internet has greater potential and profitability, therefore should not be controlled by the government.
Equally important, non-public service system introduce competitiveness. It is plenty of Internet providers that engender a trend of better service. For example, if only one restaurant in a community, by no means would it have tasty meals and proper price. Once being aware of competition, they can strive to promote themselves. This is more or less the same as the Internet. Without competition, the government appoints a company, the situation will be unimaginable, at least Internet speed .
Admittedly, there will be more citizens accessible to Internet if charging no fee. However, with the rapid development of science and technology, the cost of Internet has dropped sharply. Now people can easily surf the Internet without spending much money. For instance, a decade ago, 3G Internet was difficult to afford, while 5G began to occupy people’s life today, and 3G has already had a very low price.
A concise conclusion, through above illustration and examples, can be drawn that governments should not offer Internet access for free.
September 19, 2020 at 7:53 pmPartial revision [All sentences are problematic. You need to revise the essay substantively prior to resubmitting it. ]
September 29, 2020 at 1:55 amIn a highly developed society, it is hard to imagine there is no Internet around. On account of its necessity, whether the Internet should charge becomes a vital topic. In my opinion, governments shouldn’t provide Internet access to all citizen for free.
First, one important property of Internet serves as profitability. The internet can create billions of dollars, which is an crucial part of global economy. To be more specific, Internet companies provide loads of job opportunities and also accelerate capital flow. If government control the access of Internet, lot of people will lose job and maybe the economy will slowdown. Rather than a public service, Internet has greater potential to our society, therefore should not be controlled by the government.
Equally important, non-public service system introduce competitiveness. It is plenty of Internet companies that engender the prosperity of information age today. For example, if only one restaurant in a school, by no means would it dig for new meals. While the situation would be different if there are more restaurants. Once being aware of competition, they can strive to promote themselves. This is more or less the same as the Internet. If the government appoints a company, the situation will be unimaginable, at least Internet speed .
Admittedly, more people can use Internet if charging no fee. However, with the rapid development of science and technology, the cost of Internet has dropped sharply. Now people can easily surf the Internet with even less than a meal. For instance, a decade ago, 3G Internet was difficult to afford, while 5G began to occupy people’s life today, and 3G has already had a very low price.
A concise conclusion, through above illustration and examples, can be drawn that governments should not offer Internet access for free.
September 30, 2020 at 7:18 pmIn a highly developed society, it is hard to imagine there is no Internet around. On account of its necessity, whether the Internet should charge becomes a vital topic. In my opinion, governments shouldn’t provide Internet access to all citizen [word form error ] for free.
First, (one important property of Internet serves as profitability) [ unclear ] . (The internet can create billions of dollars) [unclear ] , which is an [article error ] crucial part of [ article error ] global economy. To be more specific, Internet companies provide loads of job opportunities and also accelerate [grammatical error ] capital flow. If government control [ grammatical error/subjunctive ] the access of Internet, (lot of) [ wrong phrase ] people will [grammatical error ] lose job [ punctuation error ] and maybe the economy will slowdown [spelling error ] . Rather than a public service, [ article error ] Internet has [ article error ] greater potential to our society, [ punctuation error ] therefore [ grammatical error ] should not be controlled by the government.
Equally important, [ article error ] non-public service system introduce [grammatical error ] competitiveness. It [ unclear article ] is plenty of Internet companies that engender the prosperity of [ article error ] information age today. For example, if only one restaurant in a school [grammatical error ] , by no means would it (dig for new meals) [ unclear ] . While the situation would be different if there are [grammatical error ] more restaurants. Once being aware of [ article error ] competition, they [ unclear pronoun ] can strive to promote themselves. This [unclear pronoun ] is more or less the same as the Internet. If the government appoints [ grammatical error ] a company, the situation will [grammatical error ] be unimaginable, (at least [ article error ] Internet speed ) [ unclear ] .
Admittedly, more people can use [article error ] Internet if charging no fee [grammatical error ] . However, with the rapid development of science and technology, the cost of [article error ] Internet has dropped sharply. Now people can easily surf the Internet (with even less than a meal) [ unclear ] . For instance, a decade ago, 3G Internet was difficult [ wrong word ] to afford, (while 5G began to occupy people’s life today, and 3G has already had a very low price) [ grammatical error/confusing] .
A concise conclusion, through above [wrong word ] illustration and examples, can be drawn that governments should not offer Internet access for free.
October 1, 2020 at 1:48 amIn a highly developed society, it is hard to imagine there is no Internet around. On account of its necessity, whether the Internet should charge becomes a vital topic. In my opinion, governments shouldn’t provide Internet access to all citizens for free.
First, Internet has the power to make profits. The internet companies can create billions of dollars through providing access, which is a crucial constituent part of global economy. To be more specific, Internet companies provide loads of job opportunities and accelerate capital flow. If government controls the access of Internet, lots of people would lose their job and slowdown the economical development. Rather than public service, Internet serves as a product, which has greater potential to our society. Therefore, it should not be controlled by the government.
Equally important, non-public service system introduces competitiveness. Plenty of Internet companies contribute to the prosperity of information age today. For example, if only one restaurant within a town, by no means would it manage to attract customers. While the situation would be different if there were more restaurants. Once being aware of competition, restaurants can strive to promote themselves. It is more or less the same as the Internet. If the government selects a company, the situation would be unimaginable.
Admittedly, more people can be available to Internet if goverment offers access. However, with the rapid development of science and technology, cost of Internet has dropped sharply. Now people can easily surf the Internet with spending very little money . For instance, a decade ago, 3G Internet, which was hard to afford years ago, already had a very low price today.
A concise conclusion, through illustration and examples, can be drawn that governments should not offer Internet access for free.
October 1, 2020 at 2:24 amPending
