Originally Posted by TwoCables
The article I posted proves that fighting for Net Neutrality is a mistake.
That article proves nothing.. it is an opinion piece (and a short sited one imo).
It argues that because regulation of isps is a response to a hypothetical situation it shouldn't be done. I would counter by saying that if isps don't try to move to tiered internet than the regulation won't affect them.... so what's the harm?
One of the main points in link you posted was that isps are already "severely regulated" by the consumer. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that considering what a monopoly/duopoly we have in the US.
It also argues that because ISPs have spent "billions" we should be grateful for the internet and that 45 a month is a good deal. I don't really buy being grateful to companies who have HUGE profit margins and hold back internet speeds. I am supposed to feel grateful that ISPs have made large investments? They have made even larger profits. There is a reason that the US is falling behind the rest of the world internet wise, and it's not too much regulation.
Anyway, my question still stands. If ISPs have no intention of creating a tiered internet, than why does this regulation bother anyone? It wouldn't affect them in that case.
Originally Posted by r3v3r3nd
Thank the gods... Net neutrality would open up a pandora's box of FCC internet regulation. This is a great victory for American personal liberty.
Personal liberty? Since when are ISPs people? I fail to see how regulating ISPs amounts to oppression personal freedom. Especially given that the nature of the FCC regulation is to regulate what ISPs are allowed to regulate. (The FCC effectively wants to regulate regulation by ISPs). The internet is a stratigic national resource, vital to the nation's success in the 21 century. Why shouldn't it be protected by regulation again?Edited by Varjo - 4/8/11 at 4:01pm