Net neutrality is a bad thing

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • CLM Draper, UT
    Dec. 26, 2010 2:51 p.m.

    The Internet has been, until recently, a "level playing field", an unrestricted free marketplace of ideas that has been a fertile ground for entrepreneurs and innovators who rise and fall on their merits.

    The regulations ensuring this free marketplace were already in place in Section 202(a) of the Communications Act. However, in 2005, the FCC lifted the rule for broadband. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not asking for further regulation, only for a return to the original regulations.

    Further, in a more perfect marketplace, there would be at least four or five high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers a variety of choice that would provide a market-based check on Net Neutrality violations, thus making it possible for the consumer to pick a provider who respected the open internet and didn't mess with open access.

    However, the reality is a reprehensible lack of capacity as well as competition, which necessitates a "referee" to make certain networks remain open and that the incentives to innovate as well as invest will endure.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 26, 2010 2:07 p.m.

    What the writer fails to realize is while the US operates as a market economy and US corporations provide robust infrastructure for the 'net, others around the world see a large flock of unprotected sheep. For example, China redirected 15% of worldwide Internet traffic at the flip of a switch last spring.

    The Internet was launched as a US federal project (including the U of Utah as an early hub). I'd prefer to keep OUR government in charge and technologically savvy in keeping it free for use by everyone.

    Demonizing government involvement opens the door to far less idealistic predation from anti-American interests abroad.